Agenda of Rodney Local Board - Wednesday, 19 March 2025

1 Nau mai | Welcome

2 Ngā Tamōtanga | Apologies

At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.

3 Te Whakapuaki i te Whai Pānga | Declaration of Interest

Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision making when a conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other external interest they might have.

4 Te Whakaū i ngā Āmiki | Confirmation of Minutes

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) whakaū / confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Wednesday, 19 February 2025, and the extraordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Wednesday, 5 March 2025, including the confidential section, as a true and correct record.

5 He Tamōtanga Motuhake | Leave of Absence

At the close of the agenda no requests for leave of absence had been received.

6 Te Mihi | Acknowledgements

At the close of the agenda no requests for acknowledgements had been received.

7 Ngā Petihana | Petitions

7.1 Snells Beach Petition

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. Mr Armiger requested the opportunity to present a petition regarding the walkway at Snells Beach.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) whakamihi / thank Mr Armiger for his attendance

b) whiwhi / receive the petition in relation to the Snells Beach walkway.

8 Ngā Tono Whakaaturanga | Deputations

Standing Order 7.7 provides for deputations. Those applying for deputations are required to give seven working days notice of subject matter and applications are approved by the Chairperson of the Rodney Local Board. This means that details relating to deputations can be included in the published agenda. Total speaking time per deputation is ten minutes or as resolved by the meeting.

8.1 Deputation: Port Albert Wharf Reserve

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. Melissa Wallace has requested a deputation to discuss the Port Albert Wharf Reserve.

2. A PowerPoint presentation has been provided and is available under Attachment A of this item (under separate cover).

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) whakamihi / thank Ms Wallace for her attendance at the meeting.

8.2 Deputation: Restore Rodney East

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. Tim Armitage and Sarah Churchouse have requested a deputation to provide an update on Restore Rodney East.

2. A PowerPoint presentation has been provided and is available under Attachment A of this item (under separate cover).

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) whakamihi / thank Mr Armitage and Ms Churchouse for their attendance at the meeting.

8.3 Deputation: Mahurangi Pasifika Festival

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. Jono Macleod has requested a deputation to provide an overview of the Mahurangi Pasifika Festival.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) whakamihi / thank Mr Macleod for his attendance at the meeting.

8.4 Deputation: Culvert on Omaha Flats Road

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. A deputation has been requested to discuss the culvert beside Matakana Fire Station on Omaha Flats Road.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) whakamihi / thank Mr Postleweight for his attendance at the meeting.

8.5 Deputation: Dairy Flat Community Hall Inc Lease Renewal

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. Henk Landweer has requested a deputation to discuss the lease renewal for the Dairy Flat Community Hall.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) whakamihi / thank Mr Landweer for his attendance at the meeting.

8.6 Deputation: Warkworth Womens Charitable Trust

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. Michelle Quintal and Jackie Niccolls have requested a deputation to discuss the Warkworth Womens Charitable Trust.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) whakamihi / thank Ms Quintal and Ms Niccolls for their attendance at the meeting.

Attachments

a Warkworth Womens Charitable Trust letter................................................... 159

9 Te Matapaki Tūmatanui | Public Forum

A period of time (approximately 30 minutes) is set aside for members of the public to address the meeting on matters within its delegated authority. A maximum of three minutes per speaker is allowed, following which there may be questions from members.

At the close of the agenda no requests for public forum had been received.

10 Ngā Pakihi Autaia | Extraordinary Business

Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

“An item that is not on the agenda for a meeting may be dealt with at that meeting if-

(a) The local authority by resolution so decides; and

(b) The presiding member explains at the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public,-

(i) The reason why the item is not on the agenda; and

(ii) The reason why the discussion of the item cannot be delayed until a subsequent meeting.”

Section 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

“Where an item is not on the agenda for a meeting,-

(a) That item may be discussed at that meeting if-

(i) That item is a minor matter relating to the general business of the local authority; and

(ii) the presiding member explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public, that the item will be discussed at the meeting; but

(b) no resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in respect of that item except to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the local authority for further discussion.”

Rodney Local Board

19 March 2025

Grant Dairy Flat Community Hall Association Incorporated a renewal of its lease for land at Dairy Flat Reserve, 6 Postman Road, Dairy Flat

File No.: CP2025/02805

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To grant Dairy Flat Community Hall Association Incorporated a renewal of its lease for land at Dairy Flat Reserve, 6 Postman Road, Dairy Flat.

Whakarāpopototanga matuaExecutive summary

2. The Dairy Flat Community Hall Association Incorporated (the association) has occupied a portion of land located at Dairy Flat Reserve since 1978 by way of a lease with the former Rodney County Council and, more recently, Auckland Council.

3. The current lease commenced 1 March 2014 and provides for an initial term of 10 years with one right of renewal for 10 years. The association has formally applied to the council to exercise its right of renewal provided under the lease agreement.

4. During May 2024, staff prepared a memorandum for the local board seeking its feedback about the renewal, utilising council’s streamlined lease renewal process.

5. The lease agreement contains a rent review provision. This allows for the rental to be reviewed at the date of the renewal period. To align with the revised fees and charges under the Community Occupancy Guidelines (updated 1 July 2023), staff recommended that the rent be increased from $1.00 plus GST per annum to $1,300 plus GST per annum, in accordance with the guidelines.

6. Feedback provided by the local board via local board services with regard to the memorandum and subsequent recommended increase in rent was that the renewal be brought to the local board for a formal resolution at an upcoming business meeting. This process will result in the matter being recorded on a public agenda.

7. The association has a strong committee, sufficient funds to meet its liabilities and it is managed appropriately. The association meets the criteria as a community lessee, and it carries all necessary insurance cover.

8. The renewal of this lease was identified as item number 3804 and approved by the local board as part of the Parks and Community Facilities: Community Leases Work Programme 2023/2024 at the 19 July 2023 local board meeting (resolution RD/2023/95).

9. The land comprising Dairy Flat Reserve is subject to the requirements of the Reserves Act 1977 and is classified as recreation reserve under the Act. The classification legally supports the association’s activities. The Rodney Local Parks Management Plan contemplates the association’s activities.

10. This report recommends the local board grant Dairy Flat Community Hall Association Incorporated a renewal of its community lease for land on which the association’s community hall and its improvements are located at Dairy Flat Reserve.

11. If the local board resolves to grant the lease renewal, staff will work with the association to finalise the renewal agreement.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) karaati / grant Dairy Flat Community Hall Association Incorporated a renewal of its lease agreement dated 28 November 2014 for 1097 for square metres (more or less) of reserve land at Dairy Flat Reserve, 6 Postman Road, Dairy Flat, legally described as Lot 1 Deposited Plan 192798 (Attachment A to the agenda report – site plan), subject to the following terms and conditions:

i) term – 10 years, commencing 1 March 2024 and expiring 28 February 2034

ii) rent - $1,300.00 plus GST per annum.

Horopaki

Context

12. Local boards have the allocated authority relating to local recreation, sport and community facilities, including community leasing matters.

13. The Dairy Flat Community Hall Association Incorporated has occupied an area of land located at Dairy Flat Reserve since 1978 by way of a lease with the former Rodney County Council and, more recently, Auckland Council.

14. The current lease commenced 1 March 2014 and provides for an initial term of 10 years with one right of renewal for 10 years. The association has formally applied to the council to exercise its right of renewal provided for under the lease agreement.

15. The renewal of this lease was identified as item number 3804 and approved by the local board as part of the Parks and Community Facilities: Community Leases Work Programme 2023-2024 at the 19 July 2023 local board meeting (resolution RD/2023/95).

16. Staff progressed with the leasing item during May 2024 by way of a ‘streamlined renewal’ memorandum to the local board. Subsequently, staff had anticipated that the matter would be completed in the first quarter of the 2024-2025 work programme year. Staff have processed leasing matters of a higher priority during the first and second quarters of the 2024–2025 work programme year. The delay in processing this renewal has not caused any material hardship for the association.

Land

17. The land the association occupies at Dairy Flat Reserve is legally described as Lot 1 Deposited Plan 192798. The land is subject to the requirements of the Reserves Act 1977 and is classified as recreation reserve under the Act. The land classification legally supports a lease for the association’s activities.

Dairy Flat Community Hall Association Incorporated

18. The association was incorporated under the Incorporated Societies Act 1908 on 6 October 1977. Contained within the association’s rules, its primary object is to manage the affairs of the Dairy Flat community hall and the reserve land.

19. The association owns and maintains its community hall and improvements located on the reserve.

20. The association has provided financial accounts which indicate that its funds are sufficient to meet its liabilities and are being managed appropriately. The association has all necessary insurance cover, including public liability insurance, in place.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Recommended term of tenure

21. Under the Auckland Council Community Occupancy Guidelines 2023 relating to group-owned assets, the standard term of tenure for leases is an initial term of 10 years with one right of renewal for 10 years. The association has formally applied to the council to exercise its right of renewal provided for under the lease agreement.

Right of renewal of lease

22. Under the renewal provisions of the lease, the council (as landlord) has a contractual obligation to grant the renewal, if the association (as tenant) fulfils the renewal conditions of the lease.

23. Under the renewal provisions within the lease, the renewal must be granted if the following conditions are met:

a) the tenant has complied with the lease and is not in breach of the current lease.

b) the tenant has provided the requisite written notice to renew the lease.

c) there is a continued need for the group to use the premises as it provides services to the community by provision of a facility for hire for the purposes of social and recreational activities and the premises are not required for any other purpose.

24. Staff assessed the renewal application and undertook a site visit on 25 January 2024. The association has satisfied all the conditions for the renewal.

Rent review

25. The Governing Body, at its business meeting of 9 June 2023, approved the annual budget including amendments to the Community Occupancy Guidelines (resolution GB/2023/101). The amendments increase the level of rent and maintenance fees for community occupancy.

26. The annual rent for community occupancy has been increased to $1,300 per annum (plus GST). The increased rental charge reflects a standard subsidised charge for community occupancy. This works out to approximately $25 per week.

27. The current lease agreement contains a rent review provision. This allows for the rent to be reviewed at renewal.

28. To align with the revised fees and charges under the Community Occupancy Guidelines (update July 2023), the recommendation is to review the rent in accordance with the lease provision, to $1,300 (+GST) per annum.

Local board discretion

29. While the Governing Body adopted the amendments to the guidelines, local boards still hold the prerogative to vary staff recommendations relating to the rental amount for leased premises.

30. If the local board chooses to retain the level of rent at $1.00, there will be no requirement for the local board to top-up the community lease revenue budget. However, the local board will not have the benefit of the additional revenue if rent is not increased.

31. The cost recovery increases for community lessees and licensees will provide local boards with a financial lever to ease their respective budgetary constraints.

32. Staff recommend that the local board grant the renewal of lease, and the rent be reviewed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the current lease.

Reserves Act considerations

33. The land comprising Dairy Flat Reserve is subject to the provisions of the Reserves Act 1977 and classified as recreation reserve. The local board formally adopted its local parks management plan in July 2023 (resolution number RD/2023/100). The association’s activities are contemplated and in conformity with the plan.

Te Tupu Ngātahi Supporting Growth – New Zealand Transport Agency Waka Kotahi

34. Auckland Council owns several properties that are affected by the long-term transport projects New Zealand Transport Agency Waka Kotahi is proposing in North Auckland. The proposed widening of the intersection of Dairy Flat Highway and Postman Road is one such project that will likely impact on the land comprising Dairy Flat Reserve.

35. The association’s lease area on Dairy Flat Reserve will not be affected by this proposed project:

a) the project is approximately 15 years away.

b) the association’s hall and improvements are located well clear of the area to be set aside for New Zealand Transport Agency Waka Kotahi’s proposed project (Attachment B to the agenda report).

Assessment of the lease application

36. The association has submitted a comprehensive application supporting its request for a renewal of its lease and is able to demonstrate its ability to manage and maintain its improvements. Staff undertook a site visit on 25 January 2024 and at which time, observed that the association was maintaining its hall and improvements within its lease area.

37. The association promotes “Friday Night Live,” typically with an attendance of 100 people, along with fundraising music events every Saturday or Sunday on its indoor stage or alternatively, its outdoor stage with up to six bands.

38. The group provides its community (and the wider community) with a facility for hire for the purposes of social and recreational activities. Additionally, the group actively encourages use of its facility for other community groups and purposes including:

· Hospice fundraising

· Civil Defence base

· Polling station.

39. The following table contains brief details on the association’s latest financials. While the association’s year end financials show a loss, it is typically able to breakeven or make a small profit. Similarly, the association holds adequate cash reserves at the bank.

Table 1: Financials

Trading revenue for the financial year ended 31 March 2024	Expenditure	Trading revenue less expenses
$30,220	$30,389	($169)

40. The association’s major expense for the financial year ended 31 March 2024 was the costs involved in repairs and maintenance of its hall and improvements in the amount of $17,021.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

41. To improve environmental outcomes and mitigate climate change impacts, the council advocates that the lessee:

· use sustainable waste, energy and water efficiency systems

· use eco labelled products and services

· seek opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from lease-related activities

· include any other outcomes that will improve environmental outcomes and mitigate climate change impacts.

42. All measures taken are aimed at meeting council’s climate goals, as set out in Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan, which are:

· to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to reach net zero emissions by 2050 and

· to prepare the region for the adverse impacts of climate change.

43. Climate change does not have the potential to impact the lease. This is because the association’s hall and improvements are located clear of the flood plain areas identified on Auckland Council’s Hazard Viewer (Attachment C to the agenda report – GIS aerial view from Auckland Council’s Hazard Viewer).

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

44. Relevant cross-council staff have been consulted on the proposed new lease. The table below contains feedback:

Table 2: Wider council team feedback

Relevant team	Feedback
Parks and Places Specialist, Parks and Community Facilities	Supportive.

45. The proposed renewal of lease has no identified impact on other parts of the council group. The views of council-controlled organisations were not required for the preparation of this report’s advice.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

46. At its business meeting of 19 July 2023, the local board approved the Customer and Community Services, Parks and Community Facilities 2023/2024 work programme (resolution number RD/2023/95). The Community Leases Work Programme 2023/2024 was contained within this work programme and the progression of the lease renewal was listed as item number 3804.

47. The recommendations in this report support the Rodney Local Board Plan 2023 outcomes ‘Our People’ (our people support each other, have what they need to live well and are able to adapt to change) and ‘Our Community’ (our community facilities, libraries and parks are great places to connect, play and learn).

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

48. Auckland Council is committed to meeting its responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi which are outlined in council’s key strategic planning documents; the Auckland Plan, the Long-Term Plan 2024 - 2034, the Unitary Plan and local board plans.

49. Staff engagement with mana whenua has been recently undertaken during the preparation of the Local Parks Management Plan process. As the Rodney Local Parks Management Plan was adopted in July 2023, staff did not undertake fresh engagement with mana whenua about the lease renewal.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

50. There is no direct cost to the council associated with the grant of the renewal of the lease. The association will continue to take responsibility for all operational and renewal costs involved with its hall and improvements located on Dairy Flat Reserve.

51. A renewal of the lease will afford the association with security of tenure and enable it to attend to the scheduled maintenance of its hall and improvements. Should the association vacate its area, there would be a risk associated with lack of maintenance. In this scenario, council would be liable for the association’s assets regardless of whether budget is allocated to, or identified for, renewals. Similarly, any required asset renewals do not appear in the annual work programme.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

52. The association has met all of the requisite conditions to exercise its right of renewal under the terms of the lease. Should the local board resolve not to grant the association a renewal of its lease, this will constitute a breach of the lease agreement by the council, as landlord.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

53. If the local board resolves to the grant the renewal of lease, staff will work with the association to finalise the agreement in accordance with the local board decision.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Site plan	15
b ⇩	GIS aerial view showing NZTA proposed future road widening	17
c ⇩	GIS aerial view from Auckland Council's Hazard Viewer	19

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Karen Walby - Community Lease Specialist

Authorisers

Kim O’Neill - Head of Property & Commercial Business

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Rodney Local Board

19 March 2025

Grant Warkworth Women's Charitable Trust a lease for land at 15 Mill Lane, Warkworth and approve the trust entering into a sublease with the Royal New Zealand Plunket Trust

File No.: CP2025/02798

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval to grant Warkworth Women’s Charitable Trust a lease for land at 15 Mill Lane, Warkworth, and approve Warkworth Women’s Charitable Trust entering into a sublease with the Royal New Zealand Plunket Trust.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The council-owned land located at 15 Mill Lane Warkworth is occupied by a building constructed in 1936 with a subsequent addition built in 1947. The building comprises a Plunket clinic on the ground floor with a residential dwelling on the first storey (originally built as a ‘flat for the Plunket nurse’).

3. During 1993, the former Rodney District Council entered into a lease with the Royal New Zealand Plunket Trust (Plunket) under the misapprehension that Plunket owned the building. The lease commenced 1 November 1991 and provided for an initial term of 10 years with two rights of renewal for 10 years each, expiring 31 October 2021. While Plunket has been maintaining the building, a group of Warkworth residents known as the Warkworth Ladies Restroom Building Committee, own it.

4. During 2020, staff discovered the former council’s error while researching the necessary documentation with the view to recommend to the local board that it grant a new ground lease for the occupied land.

5. Due to the scarcity of the council’s records on the matter, staff reached out to the archivists at the Warkworth Museum who were able to provide newspaper articles and a written chronology on the subject. This information, coupled with the respective land titles and a minute from a meeting held by the former Rodney County Council in 1936 evidence Warkworth Ladies Restroom Building Committee’s ownership of the building.

6. Two local residents with intrinsic connections to the original Warkworth Ladies Restroom Building Committee have subsequently formed the Warkworth Women’s Charitable Trust (the trust). The trust is duly registered as a legal entity on the New Zealand Charitable Trusts register. As such, the trust meets the eligibility criteria to hold a community lease and has formally applied to council for a lease. As Plunket operates a clinic from the purpose-built area on the ground floor, the trust has also applied to the council for formal approval to enter into a sublease with Plunket.

7. The trust’s intention is to charge Plunket a peppercorn rental for the sublease. This aligns with the intent of the Warkworth Ladies Restroom Building Committee when it constructed the building in 1936 and the trust’s objects contained within its constitution. Similarly, the trust rents out the residential dwelling on the first storey (the former Plunket nurses’ flat) below market rates. The income derived from the rent covers building repairs, maintenance, renewals, plus public liability and building insurance. The local Harcourts office manages the tenancy, for which, the trust pays a percentage of the rent monies.

8. The progression of the new lease was originally listed on the Parks and Community Facilities, Community Leases Work Programme 2023/2024 as approved by the local board at its business meeting of 19 July 2023 (resolution number RD/2023/95). The project was subsequently carried over to the Customer and Community Services 2024/2025 work programme and approved by the local board at its business meeting of 19 June 2024 (resolution number RD/2024/85).

9. The two parcels of land comprising the subject site are held by the council in fee simple under the Local Government Act 2002. Section 138(1) of the Act provides that council must consult with the public on any proposal to dispose of a park or part of a park. In terms of a lease, section 138(2) of the Act defines disposal as the grant of a lease on a park for a term in excess of six months providing that the lease has the effect of excluding or substantially interfering with the public’s access to the park.

10. The proposed new community lease to the trust for 71 square metres of land on which a building is located and a Plunket clinic operates from (and serves the whānau of Warkworth and surrounding districts), does not substantially interfere with or exclude the public’s access. As such, public notification of the lease was neither legally required, nor undertaken.

11. This report recommends the local board grant Warkworth Womens Charitable Trust a new community lease for land on which its building is located at 15 Mill Lane, Warkworth; additionally, approval to enter into a sublease with Plunket for its occupation of the clinic on the ground floor.

12. If the local board resolves to grant the lease, staff will work with the trust to finalise the lease agreement.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) tuku / grant Warkworth Women’s Charitable Trust under the Local Government Act 2002, a lease for 71 square metres (more or less) of land at 15 Mill Lane, Warkworth, legally described as Lot 17 Deposited Plan 26422 and Lot 1 Deposited Plan 34425 (Attachment A to the agenda report – site plan), subject to the following terms and conditions:

i) term – 10 years, commencing 20 February 2025, with one 10 year right of renewal

ii) rent – $1,300.00 plus GST per annum

iii) a community outcomes plan will be appended as a schedule to the lease agreement

b) whakaae / approve Warkworth Women’s Charitable Trust community outcomes plan (Attachment B to the agenda report – Community Outcomes Plan)

c) whakaae / approve Warkworth Women’s Charitable Trust entering into a sublease with the Royal New Zealand Plunket Trust for the ground floor of the Warkworth Women’s Charitable Trust building located at 15 Mill Lane Warkworth for the purposes of operating a Plunket clinic

d) tuhi tīpoka / note that all other terms and conditions will be in accordance with the Local Government Act 2002 and the Auckland Council Community Occupancy Guidelines as updated 1 July 2023.

Horopaki

Context

13. Local boards have the allocated authority relating to local recreation, sport and community facilities, including community leasing matters.

14. The progression of the proposed new lease was originally listed as item number 3809 on the Parks and Community Facilities, Community Leases Work Programme 2023/2024 as approved by the local board at its business meeting of 19 July 2023 (resolution number RD/2023/95). The project was subsequently carried over to the Customer and Community Services 2024/2025 work programme and approved by the local board at its business meeting of 19 June 2024 (resolution number RD/2024/85).

15. The trust has formally applied to the council for a new lease and approval to enter into a sublease with Plunket to occupy the ground floor area of the building and operate as a clinic.

Land and building

16. The land the trust occupies at 15 Mill Lane Warkworth comprises two parcels and is legally described as Lot 17 Deposited Plan 26422 and Lot 1 Deposited Plan 34425. The land is subject to the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 and is held in fee simple by the council.

17. During 1935, a member of the public vested a portion of land at 15 Mill Lane Warkworth in the Warkworth Town Board (the council) on the condition that a building was erected for the purposes of a Plunket clinic, waiting room and toilet. The building was constructed in 1936. A Warkworth Womens Committee was created to manage the building. In 1947, another member of the public gifted additional land and the building was extended, along with the construction of a flat for the Plunket nurse.

Warkworth Womens Charitable Trust

18. The Warkworth Women’s Charitable Trust was duly incorporated under the Charitable Trusts Act 1957 on 6 March 2023. Contained within the trust’s constitution, its objects include:

· to lease the land at 15 Mill Lane, Warkworth

· to sub-let the clinic to Plunket for as long as they wish to provide health check service to mothers and young children in Warkworth

· if Plunket no longer wishes to use the clinic it can be subleased to another organisation providing services benefitting the women and children of Warkworth

· the flat above the Plunket clinic was originally constructed for the use of the Plunket nurse. However, if not required for this purpose it can be rented to any individual or organisation without interference to the clinic below. The rent to be set slightly below market value and revenue to be first used for maintenance and upkeep of the building, with any surplus to be invested in bank savings account or term deposit for future use.

19. The trust has provided financial accounts which indicate that its funds are sufficient to meet its liabilities and are being managed appropriately. The trust has all necessary insurance cover, including public liability insurance, in place.

20. Council staff have negotiated and agreed a community outcomes plan with the trust, which, if approved by the Rodney Local Board will be appended as a schedule to the new lease agreement.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Confirming ownership of building

21. Historical minutes from meetings held by the former Warkworth Town Council (the council) are scarce and records are incomplete because of a fire in the document storage facility of the Town Council.

22. During 1993, the former Rodney District Council entered into a lease with the Royal New Zealand Plunket Trust (Plunket) under the misapprehension that Plunket owned the building. The lease commenced 1 November 1991 and provided for an initial term of 10 years with two rights of renewal for 10 years each, expiring 31 October 2021. While Plunket has been maintaining the building, a group of Warkworth residents known as the Warkworth Ladies Restroom Building Committee, own it.

23. During 2020, staff discovered the former council’s error while researching the necessary documentation with the view to recommend to the local board that it grant a new ground lease for the occupied land.

24. For decades, Plunket has been using its funds to maintain the building (as a requirement of the lease agreement it believed it had the authority to enter into). As such, the trust intends to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with Plunket (about financial matters), in addition to the sublease for the tenancy of the ground floor clinic.

25. Various newspaper articles and a written account uncovered by the archivists at the Warkworth Museum illuminate a snapshot in time, illustrating the social history relating to the land and building at 15 Mill Lane, Warkworth. The table below contains a timeline of recorded events:

Table 1: Timeline relating to land and building

Year	Event
1934	During July, Plunket held a Baby Queen Carnival in Warkworth.
1935/1936	A member of the public gifted a portion of land in Mill Lane to the Warkworth Town Council (Town Board) on the condition that a Ladies Restroom and Plunket Clinic were constructed on the land within 12 months of the gifting. A committee formed by Warkworth locals raised money, subscriptions and supervised the 1936 erection of the building comprising a waiting room, toilets and an area for a nurses’ clinic.
1939	Electric lighting and a power point were installed.
1942/1945	The Plunket Clinic room reached capacity. A new committee was formed calling itself the Warkworth Ladies Rest Room Building Committee. It organised another Baby Queen Carnival in 1945 to raise funds for an extension to the clinic and to erect a flat over the original building to accommodate the Plunket nurse.
1947	Another member of the public gifted additional land to enable the extension to the clinic and the adjacent bowling club gifted sufficient land on which stairs were constructed to provide access to the newly constructed nurses’ flat. Initially, “the flat was not completely finished or furnished but many supporters gave gifts of furniture and furnishings, etc, to enable the first nurse to live there in reasonable comfort.” By all accounts, “there was an overdraft at the Bank of New Zealand but eventually the rent eliminated this and as time passed, extra comforts were provided.” Two members of the public had stood as guarantors at the bank until the debt was paid off.”

Recommended term of tenure

26. Under the Auckland Council Community Occupancy Guidelines 2023 (the guidelines) relating to group-owned assets, the standard term of tenure for leases is an initial term of 10 years with one right of renewal for 10 years.

Local Government Act 2002 considerations

27. As the underlying land at 15 Mill Lane, Warkworth is subject to the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002, public notification is usually required pursuant to section 138 of the Act. Section 138(1) provides that council must consult with the public on any proposal to dispose of a park or part of a park.

28. In terms of a lease, section 138(2) defines disposal as the grant of a lease on a park for a term in excess of six months providing that the lease has the effect of excluding or substantially interfering with the public’s access to the park.

29. A lease to the trust for 71 square metres of land on which its building is located and a Plunket clinic operates from (and serves the whānau of Warkworth and surrounding districts), does not substantially interfere with or exclude the public’s access. As such, public notification of the lease was neither legally required, nor undertaken.

Assessment of the lease application

30. The trust has submitted a comprehensive application supporting its request for a new lease and is able to demonstrate its ability to manage and maintain its improvements. The trustees have the support of a small group of passionate and proud Warkworth locals who have close links to the original Warkworth Ladies Restroom Building Committee.

31. Staff undertook a site visit 26 May 2023 and at which time, observed that the trust was maintaining its lease area.

32. The newly formed trust (a legal entity) submitted its financials in its application for a new lease. The following table contains brief details on the trust’s latest financials, year-end 31 March 2024.

Table 2: Financials

Income from rental of upstairs flat	Expenditure (Harcourt’s fees, property maintenance, building and public liability insurance	Income less expenses
$26,355	$13,565	$6,940.84

Royal New Zealand Plunket Trust

33. The Royal New Zealand Plunket Trust trading as Whānau Āwhina Plunket is a nationally recognised not-for profit organisation established in 1906 to support the health and wellbeing of babies to six-year-olds and their whānau. Whānau Āwhina Plunket offer the following services, free of charge:

· Plunketline (free parent helpline in te reo Māori and English)

· Pasifika Beatz (provision of interactive childrens’ songs integrating 10 different Pacific languages for the whole whānau to sing along to)

· antenatal education and support

· parenting education and support

· drop in clinics

· education in schools

· before school checks

· Plunket in your community (support services to help whānau connect with others in their community and to empower whānau in their role as a parent or caregiver).

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

34. To improve environmental outcomes and mitigate climate change impacts, the council advocates that the lessee:

· use sustainable waste, energy and water efficiency systems

· use eco labelled products and services

· seek opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from lease-related activities

· include any other outcomes that will improve environmental outcomes and mitigate climate change impacts.

35. All measures taken are aimed at meeting council’s climate goals, as set out in Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan, which are:

· to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to reach net zero emissions by 2050 and

· to prepare the region for the adverse impacts of climate change.

36. Climate change does not have the potential to impact the lease. This is because the trust’s building is located clear of the flood plain areas identified on Auckland Council’s Hazard Viewer (Attachment C to the agenda report – GIS aerial view from Auckland Council’s Hazard Viewer).

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

37. Relevant cross-council staff have been consulted on the proposed new lease. The table below contains detailed feedback:

Table 3: Wider council team feedback

Relevant team	Feedback
Community Broker, Rodney Local Board Community Wellbeing	No issues.
Parks and Places Specialist, Parks and Community Facilities	Don’t have any concerns from a parks services perspective.
Service and Asset Planning Specialist Policy, Planning and Governance	No further comments.

38. The proposed new lease has no identified impact on other parts of the council group. The views of council-controlled organisations were not required for the preparation of this report’s advice.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

39. At its business meeting of 19 July 2023, the local board approved the Customer and Community Services, Parks and Community Facilities 2023/2024 work programme (resolution number RD/2023/95). The Community Leases Work Programme 2023/2024 was contained within this work programme. The progression of the proposed lease was listed as item number 3812 on the work programme.

40. The project was subsequently carried over to the Customer and Community Services 2024/2025 work programme and approved by the local board at its business meeting of 19 June 2024 (resolution number RD/2024/85).

41. The recommendations in this report support the Rodney Local Board Plan 2023 outcomes ‘Our People’ (our people support each other, have what they need to live well and are able to adapt to change) and ‘Our Community’ (our community facilities, libraries and parks are great places to connect, play and learn).

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

42. Auckland Council is committed to meeting its responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi which are outlined in council’s key strategic planning documents; the Auckland Plan, the Long-term Plan 2024 - 2034, the Auckland Unitary Plan, and local board plans.

43. Whānau Āwhina Plunket sees approximately 80 per cent of all newborn babies in Aotearoa New Zealand and more than 50 per cent of all newborn Māori babies. It is perfectly placed to make the difference of a lifetime in those vital first 1000 days of a child’s life. Whānau Āwhina Plunket is on a journey to ensure equitable health outcomes for all our whānau – a goal it is passionate about and committed to seeing through.

44. Whānau Āwhina Plunket has existing areas of innovation where services have been co-designed with whānau Māori to be more responsive to the needs of Māori.

45. Staff engagement with mana whenua has been recently undertaken during the preparation of the local parks panagement Plan process. This included engagement about council-owned and managed land in the Warkworth subdivision area in which 15 Mill Lane is located. As the Rodney Local Parks Management Plan was adopted in July 2023, staff did not undertake fresh engagement with mana whenua about the lease proposal.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

46. There is no direct cost to the council associated with the grant of a new lease. The trust will continue to take responsibility for all operational and renewal costs involved with its building located at 15 Mill Lane, Warkworth.

47. A new lease would afford the trust with security of tenure and enable it to attend to the scheduled maintenance of its building. Should the trust vacate its area, there would be a risk associated with lack of maintenance. In this scenario, council would be liable for the trust’s assets regardless of whether budget is allocated to or identified for renewals. Similarly, any required asset renewals do not appear in the annual work programme.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

48. Should the local board resolve not to grant the trust a new lease and the approval to sublease the clinic area to Plunket, this will negatively impact the ability of the trust to undertake all current and future activities. Additionally, this would have a flow-on effect for the Royal New Zealand Plunket Trust (as sub-lessee) who rely on the clinic from which to provide its services to the Warkworth community. This would have an adverse impact on the achievement of the respective local board plan outcomes.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

49. If the local board resolves to the grant the proposed lease, staff will work with the trust to finalise the agreement in accordance with the local board decision. The trust will need to instruct its legal counsel, at its cost, to prepare a sublease agreement between the trust and Plunket.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Site plan	29
b ⇩	Community Outcomes Plan	31
c ⇩	GIS aerial view from Auckland Council's Hazard Viewer	33

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Karen Walby - Community Lease Specialist

Authorisers

Kim O’Neill - Head of Property & Commercial Business

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Rodney Local Board

19 March 2025

Milldale Development Stage 4C-1 - amendment to resolution RD/2024/168 Infrastructure Funding Agreement for seating and picnic tables

File No.: CP2025/03729

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval to delegate authority to the General Manager, Parks and Community Facilities to negotiate and approve all seating and picnic tables within the Milldale development, including negotiating related maintenance bonds and the assessment and approval of engineering details.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Milldale development is a master-planned community within the Wainui Precinct, designed to accommodate new housing, road reserves, a local centre, neighbourhood centers, and parks of various sizes. As the development progresses, the developer supplies seating and picnic tables, and where necessary, is subject to review and maintenance by Parks and Community Facilities and approval from the Rodney Local Board.

3. Under the previous resolution of 16 October 2024 RD/2024/168, the developer, Fulton Hogan was required to enter into an Infrastructure Funding Agreement for seating and picnic tables within Stage 4C-1 of the Milldale development road reserve.

4. An Infrastructure Funding Agreement was initially recommended by the council to formalise asset delivery and maintenance responsibilities. This is a mechanism within Auckland Council to manage the risks associated with asset development, such as ongoing maintenance.

5. Fulton Hogan proposed using maintenance bonds as an alternative solution for the seating and picnic tables instead of an Infrastructure Funding Agreement.

6. Parks and Community Facilities now seeks to streamline the process and recommends the Rodney Local Board delegate authority to staff to manage the implementation and associated risk of the seating and picnic tables. This delegation would be within the Stage 4C-1 and future stages of the Milldale development, where applicable.

7. Parks and Community Facilities also requests full delegation to review and approve proposed seating and picnic tables across the wider Milldale development, removing the need for the local board to pass a resolution for each subsequent seating and picnic table proposal submitted.

8. If this new resolution is endorsed, Parks and Community Facilities staff will assess seating and picnic table proposals in consultation with council specialists, ensuring that seating and picnic table locations and designs align with the Rodney Asset Guide standards.

9. Recent confirmation has been obtained from Auckland Transport that seating and picnic tables in the road reserve are their responsibility which includes maintenance, renewal, upgrade modification and funding.

10. The Rodney Local Board has previously provided guidelines for seating and picnic table designs in Milldale. Under the proposed streamlined process, the following considerations will apply to all seating and picnic tables in future Milldale development applications:

a) all seating and picnic tables are to be powder coated, and the steel should be hot-dipped and galvanised.

b) seating and picnic tables should be appropriately located within Milldale in coordination with Auckland Council’s delegated specialists.

c) the provision and associated Operational Expenditure (OPEX) of seating and picnic tables and the consequential OPEX are to be reviewed by the council’s operations teams.

11. Area Operations staff will also evaluate related Operational Expenditures (OPEX) to confirm that the seating and picnic tables, where acceptable, are appropriate and fit for purpose.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) whakaae / approve the following sequence of measures for seating and picnic table proposals in the Milldale development:

i) tautapa / delegate to the General Manager, Parks and Community Facilities authority to:

A) consider whether local board feedback or resolution is required in any future stages prior to exercising this delegation

B) negotiate an acceptable maintenance bond with the developer for seating and picnic tables within Stage 4C-1 of the development

C) assess and approve engineering detail for all seating and picnic tables in future stages of the Milldale Development in line with clause d) of resolution RD/2024/168

D) negotiate an acceptable maintenance bond with the developer for seating and picnic tables in future stages of the Milldale development as part of the respective resource consent, s224(c) and/or engineering plan approval processes

E) in exceptional circumstances negotiate an Infrastructure Funding Agreement on terms in alignment with Auckland Council’s Infrastructure Funding Team for seating and picnic tables where the developer does not wish to enter into a maintenance bond arrangement

b) in conjunction with the above, withdraw clause b) of resolution RD/2024/168 from the 16 October 2024 business meeting minutes - Third party approval - Milldale development Stage 4C-1 Seating on Road Reserve - “tautapa / delegate to the General Manager, Parks and Community Facilities authority to negotiate the Infrastructure Funding Agreement on terms in alignment with Auckland Council Infrastructure Funding Team”.

Horopaki

Context

12. In October 2024, the local board made a resolution (RD/2024/168) for Milldale development stage 4C-1. One of the clauses required the developer to enter into an Infrastructure Funding Agreement (IFA) with council for the proposed seating and picnic tables.

13. An IFA is a commercial, legally binding agreement, entered into by Auckland Council and developer. An IFA is a ‘monitoring agreement’ when developers undertake large-scale developments, which will include the construction of multiple assets, to be vested in the council such as seats and picnic tables which are not covered under a resource consent

14. The requested IFA related to six benches and four picnic sets to be vested to and maintained by Auckland Council.

15. The IFA would have included contingency costing, including providing relevant bonds, should the developer be unable to carry out the works.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

16. Since the local board resolution in October 2024, Fulton Hogan has proposed an alternative mechanism, using bonds as part of the consenting process instead, given the associated costs of the IFA.

17. Staff are therefore proposing to include maintenance bonds in the practical completion and handover of assets as part of the consenting s224(c) and/or engineering plan approval processes for all proposed seating and picnic tables.

Process involving bonds

18. The Resource Management Act (RMA) 1991 - S224(c) requires a council to certify that certain conditions of a resource consent have been met before the land can be subdivided or the consent is fully approved.

19. This process ensures that all conditions specified in a resource consent (such as infrastructure, stormwater management, or asset maintenance requirements) are fulfilled. Section 222 of the RMA (completion certificates) therefore allows for a bond to be taken, including contingencies, to ensure that ongoing conditions such as maintenance, can be complied with after the registration of titles and to ensure it meets the required standards prior to hand over.

20. The engineering plan approval process is managed under the Local Government Act and allows for assets to be taken over that are fit for purpose. Bonds can also be taken under this process at the time of releasing the engineering approval completion certificate (EACC) to ensure maintenance obligations are fulfilled and to ensure it meets the required standards prior to hand over.

21. Noting the above process, Parks and Community Facilities requests full delegation to streamline future seating and picnic table approvals in the Milldale development in collaboration with the council's operations and design teams. This would ensure timely progress of seating and picnic table installation in Milldale and avoid delays in future stages with the exception of a request by staff or the local board for seating and picnic tables to receive local board review and/or resolution.

22. This delegation would help manage all steps as outlined in the recommendations section above for the installation of seats and picnic tables in the Milldale development. These steps include:

· Approving all seating and picnic tables for future Milldale development stages, except where local board review is requested while also delegating authority to assess engineering details and negotiate maintenance bonds for current and future development stages

· Allow for the negotiation of an Infrastructure Funding Agreement in exceptional cases where a developer does not wish to enter a maintenance bond while Withdrawing resolution (b) of RD/2024/168 regarding the Infrastructure Funding Agreement for Stage 4C-1.

23. The above steps are considered necessary as seating and picnic tables are not included in the current resource consent conditions for Milldale and, therefore, require sign-off from the local board. In addition, there are OPEX implications and future management of these assets under Parks and Community Facilities (PCF). As part of this process, PCF is required to consult with the Rodney Local Board every time seating and picnic tables are proposed within engineering plan approval (EPA) applications.

24. This process is lengthy and complex, involving workshops, approval through local board business meetings, and final IFA’s. Consequently, many EPA applications fail to meet developer timeframes, causing significant delays to large-scale projects.

25. Parks and Community Facilities therefore seeks full delegation to use the existing resource consent and engineering plan approval processes to assess all seating and picnic tables for the entire Milldale Development to streamline the process and prevent project delays for the developer.

26. This delegation would ensure a comprehensive assessment of both current and future applications, aligning with the local board's previous recommendations regarding seating and picnic tables, including:

· all seating and picnic tables must be powder coated, and the steel must be hot-dipped galvanized

· seating and picnic tables must be appropriately located within Milldale, in coordination with council’s delegated specialists

· PCF Operations will manage the provision of seating and picnic tables to avoid over- or under-provision, with council’s operations team advising on future maintenance and OPEX burdens.

27. Parks and Community Facilities staff have provided strategic direction for the service outcome and delivery of seating and picnic tables and advice regarding design and maintenance to ensure consistency with industry design procedures and to guide minimum design standards.

28. Where considered applicable, all seating and picnic tables will be installed at the developer's sole cost, while balancing OPEX and maintenance costs.

29. The maintenance obligation for all proposed seating and picnic tables will be reduced and managed to meet the council’s operational and maintenance costs. This includes seating and benches that will be ‘off the shelf’.

30. The Area Operations Manager and Facilities Manager for the Rodney Local Board area support this approach, recognising its advantages, particularly in ensuring assets align with the Rodney Asset Guide, to ensure that seating and picnic table numbers remain realistic, preventing unnecessary excess and inflated operational costs.

31. Auckland Transport has confirmed, under the Service Level Agreement (SLA), that it will maintain all seating and picnic tables within the road reserve. For seating and picnic tables in areas vested in Auckland Council, such as esplanade reserves, drainage reserves, and parks, maintenance will fall under the responsibility of PCF. Previously, this approach was not applied consistently across all local board areas; however, it is now the standard practice for maintenance responsibilities and approvals.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

32. In June 2019, Auckland Council declared a climate emergency and a commitment to the community to look at ways we can consider climate implications in everything that we do. Parks and Community Facilities is committed to the regional sustainability targets of Te-Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri-Auckland's Climate Plan.

33. Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Action Plan sets out two core goals:

· to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to reach net zero emissions by 2050, and

· to prepare the region for the adverse impacts of climate change.

34. Seating and picnic tables provides for pause points in conjunction with walking and cycling opportunities to enable wider connectivity and activation. While this will contribute to health and physical activation, it will also reduce carbon emissions, improve air quality and decrease dependency on non-renewable resources.

35. Any formal development of seating and picnic tables will contribute to climate change through carbon emissions, particularly during construction and renewal phases, and through ongoing maintenance. These impacts are carefully considered when creating new assets on roads reserve, parks, esplanade reserves and drainage reserves.

36. The seating and picnic table assets in Milldale include standard vitex timber hardwood whilst being sourced from a local manufacturer in accordance with the Rodney Local Asset Guide. This approach aims to reduce construction and demolition waste, as well as climate risks and lifecycle emissions.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

37. Council specialists have provided positive feedback on the proposed seating and picnic tables within Milldale developments. Table 1 below outlines all specialists that would be consulted on future seating and picnic table applications.

Table 1: Council specialists for future consultation

Specialists	Expertise and focus areas
Landscape Architect	The assessment of seating and picnic table functionality, aesthetics, and alignment with the surrounding environment. Maximisation of accessibility and usability.
Landscape Specialist	The integration assessment of seating and picnic tables with the surrounding landscaping to create a cohesive, functional, and visually appealing environment. The placement of seating and picnic tables must coordinate with pathways, planting schemes, and shade-providing trees to ensure accessibility, comfort, and usability.
Parks and Places Specialist	The assessment of seating and picnic table alignment with greenways and connections including the integration with the surrounding network to enhance functionality, accessibility, and connectivity.
Area Operations – Rodney	The assessment of seating and picnic table practicality, long-term maintenance, and financial sustainability. The specialist evaluates material durability and design to ensure the seating and picnic tables meet operational requirements, such as weather resistance.

38. In addition, no anti-graffiti measures or treatments are required for the seating and picnic tables, as they will be made from vitex hardwood timber, allowing any graffiti to be removed by sanding. Black powder-coated treatments are required over galvanised steel, in alignment with the Rodney Asset Guide and with consideration of future maintenance costs.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

39. The development of seating and picnic tables within the Milldale developments aligns with the following 2023 Rodney Local Board Plan focus areas and objectives:

Table 2: Rodney Local Board Plan 2023 focus areas and objectives

Rodney Local Board	Objectives	Key Initiatives
Our People	· People have a strong sense of connection and feel included and able to participate in community life	· People have access to local spaces that are inclusive, accessible and culturally welcoming
Our Environment	· We work together to protect and restore our biodiversity and natural ecosystems	· To improve sites of high ecological value and protect local biodiversity such as threatened and at-risk species at a landscape scale
Our Community	· Parks and open spaces meet the needs of our growing town centres and diverse rural communities	· Continue to deliver well-maintained high-quality parks and open spaces to ensure there is sufficient space to cater for needs in growth areas
Our Places	· Towns and villages are well planned, attractive, vibrant and cared for. They reflect local heritage, culture and identity and complement our stunning natural environments	· Continue to deliver enhancement and streetscape improvement projects in the town centres, villages and rural communities · When community groups and organisations are delivering initiatives contributing to improved social and environmental outcomes, explore ways to reduce their costs and assist them with council processes
Our Transport	· Pedestrians and non-road users are safe	· Deliver safety projects for pedestrians, cyclists and mobility devices appropriate to the rural and semi-rural context

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

40. Auckland Council is committed to meeting its responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its broader obligations to Māori.

41. These commitments are articulated in the council’s key strategic planning documents, the Auckland Plan, the Long-term Plan 2024-2034, the Auckland Unitary Plan operative in part, Whiria Te Muka Tangata Māori Responsiveness Framework, Kia Ora Tāmaki Makaurau - Māori Outcomes Performance Measurement Framework and the local board plans.

42. Future and ongoing applications for Fulton Hogan will be subject to a resource consent or a separate assessment under EPA. These assessments will identify any matters of interest to mana whenua relating to the seating and picnic tables. This has not been identified for any stages within the Milldale development.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

43. The consequential operational expenditure (OPEX) funding required for maintaining the assets in the future will have ongoing financial implications.

44. The developer will cover the entire capital expenditure (CAPEX) costs to construct and install the seating and picnic tables and is obligated to maintain the assets for two years in road reserves and five years for reserves (parks, esplanade reserves and drainage reserves).

45. For any future application, Auckland Council’s Quantity Surveyor will conduct a high-level assessment and estimate the ongoing required local board OPEX. This will be coordinated with Councils Operations team.

46. If approved, OPEX expenditure will commence following final completion (hand over) and the conclusion of the subsequent two-year (2) and five-year (5) maintenance periods undertaken by Fulton Hogan as mentioned above.

47. The ongoing OPEX cost to the local board will be minimised given the assets will be:

· galvanised and powder coated to increase durability and;

· standard to avoid any bespoke costings.

48. In addition, working within the Rodney Asset Guide, the approach proposed will ensure that quantity of seating and picnic tables is appropriate and not excessive. Milldale Stage 4C-1 consequential OPEX has been calculated at circa $1,170 per annum (four picnic sets and six benches). Ongoing OPEX for this stage of development and future stages in Milldale is considered not to have a material effect on the local board’s finances.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

49. Cost escalation and inadequate handover are risks for delivering the open space infrastructure. These will be managed via appropriate bonds signed by both the developer’s representative and Auckland Council to ensure proper handover of all documents, warranties, as-builts, and producer statements and subsequent maintenance.

50. The maintenance period will commence after practical completion, with regular council monitoring and final sign-offs required before any OPEX responsibility is incurred.

51. The developer will be responsible for the delivery of all assets and will absorb all cost escalations for implementation prior to the final handover.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

52. The developer wishes to commence with all the installation of seating and picnic tables as soon as possible following the Rodney Local Board’s approval of this amendment.

53. Subject to the Rodney Local Board’s approval, staff will review future and ongoing proposed plans and assets included within the EPA proposals and negotiate applicable bonds for the required developer maintenance period.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Seating and picnic table example application Stage 4C-1	43
b ⇩	Masterplan of all Stages	55

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Cas Hannink - Planner

Authorisers

Hester Gerber - Parks Planning Team Leader

Kim O’Neill - Head of Property & Commercial Business

Rodney Local Board

19 March 2025

Auckland Transport update on the Rodney Local Board Transport Targeted Rate – March 2025

File No.: CP2025/03612

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide an update on the programme of work being delivered by Auckland Transport using the funding from the Rodney Local Board Transport Targeted Rate.

2. To seek feedback on the prioritisation of replacement of clay pavers in Wellsford Town centre.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

3. Auckland Transport has agreed to proceed with the staged replacement of the clay pavers in Wellsford, as budget allows. This is proposed to be undertaken in sections, the prioritisation of which should be agreed with the local board.

4. The cost of running the Friday and Saturday late-night Warkworth 999 bus has been confirmed as $19,032 per annum.

5. The new bus stop at the Warkworth RSA and relocated bus stop at Warkworth medical centre are being designed and will be workshopped with the local board in April 2025.

6. The Rodney Street, Wellsford footpath is forecast to have a total cost of $3,603,000, a saving of $92,000 against the budget of $3,695,000. The forecast is inclusive of a provisional sum of $50,000 for the remediation of unstable ground.

7. Investigation into the next tranche of footpath projects in the Kumeū subdivision is scheduled to start from July 2025 as new capital funding is made available. Initial site visits and meetings with some key stakeholders will start in March 2025.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) tuhi tīpoka / note the status and progress on the programme of work being delivered by Auckland Transport using the funding from the Rodney Local Board Transport Targeted Rate

b) tuku / provide feedback on the proposed prioritisation of the replacement of clay pavers in Wellsford.

Horopaki

Context

8. In May 2018, the local board recommended that the Governing Body approve a targeted rate to accelerate investment in transport in the Rodney Local Board area (resolution RD/2018/61). The recommendation was accepted, and the Rodney Local Board Transport Targeted Rate (RLBTTR) is currently scheduled to run for 10 years (2018-2028).

9. The local board is the decision-maker regarding funds raised through the rate. Auckland Council receives the rates payments, and Auckland Transport provides technical advice and delivers transport projects on behalf of the local board.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Wellsford Clay Pavers

10. In November 2024, Auckland Transport provided a memo to the local board members proposing an approach to resolving the issues identified with the clay pavers in Wellsford town centre, and to seek feedback on the proposed prioritisation.

11. In the memo, Auckland Transport acknowledged the feedback from the local board and community, and that the local board has chosen to invest transport targeted rate funds to the project. Auckland Transport agreed that replacement of the clay pavers with exposed aggregate concrete should improve slip performance.

12. While Auckland Transport does not currently have budget available or planned for this project, it may be able to allocate budget in future years.

13. To develop a prioritisation framework for the replacement of the pavers, Auckland Transport has assessed the Wellsford town centre by sections (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Proposed labels for sections of clay pavers

14. These sections have been prioritised considering reported slips and trips, the condition of the pavers, foot traffic, number and type of retail units impacted, steep gradients or high crossfall, underground services (Table 1).

Table 1: Recommended approach by section

Section	Description & condition	AT recommended approach	AT recommended priority
McDonalds	High foot traffic in front of bakery and food hall.	Lower priority.	8
Caltex	Five small sections across intersection with Caltex, SH16, Workers Rd.	Lower priority.	9
SPCA	Multiple shop fronts, high foot traffic.	Medium priority.	5
Hospice	Multiple shop fronts, high foot traffic, steep.	Medium priority.	4
Carpark lane	Northern half paved, southern half gravel, steep.	Replace both pavers and loose gravel with full-width concrete.	3
Post shop	Multiple shop fronts, high foot traffic, steep.	High priority, with bank and disabled carpark.	2
Gull	Serious damage (probably by heavy vehicle).	AT to replace immediately	Complete
Drummers	Steep, but lower foot traffic	Lower priority.	10
Mobil	Northern end is steep with damage from vehicles parking on footpath. Some subsidence into vacant lot. Challenges with level change into retail.	High priority, particularly around café and utility chambers.	1
Superette	High foot traffic, but flatter area.	Medium priority.	6

15. It is recommended that the local board resolves on the prioritisation, so Auckland Transport can undertake replacements over time, first using transport targeted rate funds and then Auckland Transport funds, as they become available.

16. There are risks and challenges with this project (Table 2). Should there be material impacts to the cost and/or timing of the project, Auckland Transport will engage with Rodney Local Board to discuss options.

Table 2: Risks and potential mitigations

Risks

Potential mitigations

In addition to identified existing drainage from buildings under footpaths, there may be unknown underground services and utilities. These could increase cost and complexity of the project.

Investigation and design will seek to identify any issues prior to work start. Utility companies will be engaged to seek alignment of works.

The closure of footpaths and parking will be disruptive to retail and access.

The project will impact State Highway 1 and State Highway 16.

A high level of stakeholder management will be required. Retailers, stakeholders and New Zealand Transport Agency Waka Kotahi will be engaged throughout.

A significant level of work will need to be undertaken at night when road and footpath traffic is reduced. While this may increase costs, it should reduce disruption.

Work can be undertaken in smaller tranches to reduce disruption.

17. Auckland Council has explored potentially salvaging some of the clay pavers re-use by community projects. However, the process of digging out the pavers is highly likely to damage the pavers, and the additional labour of stacking them for efficient relocation would add considerable labour and cost. As such, AT does not recommend the local board pursue salvaging the clay pavers.

18. The Gull petrol station section of the pavement was badly damaged and needed immediate resolution. This was repaired in December 2024 with Auckland Transport funds. The new surface is exposed aggregate concrete with black oxide, resulting in a light grey finish.

19. Heavy vehicles have been observed parking on the newly replaced section of footpath (see Figure 2). This behaviour is likely to have caused the original damage and risks creating further damage, creating a hazard to other footpath and road users. As such, Auckland Transport will utilise parking enforcement and fines wherever this is identified. If requested by the local board, Auckland Transport can investigate the conversion of some on-street parking to loading zones, noting that any changes would require funding by either Auckland Transport or the local board.

Figure 2: Heavy vehicle parking on newly replaced footpath outside the Gull Station (vehicle registration and branding redacted)

Changes to the route 999 Warkworth loop bus

Friday/Saturday late running

20. In October 2024, the local board requested Auckland Transport extend the 999 Warkworth Loop bus service to 10pm on Fridays and Saturdays at an estimated cost of $20,000 per annum.

21. These extended hours began on Friday 12 December 2024, with a confirmed cost of $19,032 per annum. Patronage is being monitored and will be reported following six months of operation.

Bus stop changes

22. Returned Services Association and Medical Centre – Concept designs for a new bus stop outside the Returned Services Association on Neville Street and the relocation of the Warkworth Medical Centre bus stop are being developed with input from key stakeholders. These designs will be workshopped with the local board in April 2025.

Current footpath projects

Rodney Street, Wellsford

23. The Rodney Street footbridge project over the railway line is mostly complete, with the footpath and footbridge open to the public.

24. Some additional works may be required to remediate slipping in the hillside caused by unstable ground. This is being investigated in collaboration with KiwiRail.

25. The total cost to the RLBTTR at the end of January 2025 is $3,413,000. An additional $190,000 is forecast, including a provisional sum of $50,000 for ground remediation. It is projected that the total cost will be $3,603,000, a saving of $92,000 against a budget of $3,695,000.

Coatesville-Riverhead Highway

26. This project is in two parts, with footpaths and parking improvements being funded by the RLBTTR and a pedestrian crossing on the Coatesville-Riverhead Highway funded by the Rodney Local Board Transport Capital Fund. Both elements are expected to be delivered at the same time.

27. Public engagement is expected to start in mid-March 2025.

28. The RLBTTR element of this project is projected to cost $340,000.

Funding and future projects

29. The RLBTTR programme is on track to meet the revised capital plan of $2,530,000 for Financial Year 2024/2025.

30. The next financial year (starting 1 July 2025) has a capital plan budget of $6,900,000. This is expected to be allocated to:

· Footpath projects: Koraha Road, Kumeū and Kaukapakapa village

· Green Road Park stage 2 paths (delivered by Auckland Council Parks and Community Facilities)

· Replacement of clay pavers in some sections of the footpath in Wellsford town centre

· Investigations into the next tranche of footpath projects in the Kumeū subdivision. Initial site visits and meetings with key stakeholders (including the three schools) is planned for March 2025:

a) Rautawhiri Road, Kumeū (near Kaipara College).

b) Taupaki School, Cottle Road, Taupaki.

c) Nobilo Road - Station Road, Kumeū.

d) Waioneke School, South Head Road, South Head.

e) York Terrace and Elliot Street, Riverhead.

f) Kahikatea Flat Road, Waitoki.

· Investigations into one project in the Warkworth subdivision:

a) Campbell Reserve, Glenmore Drive: creation of a gravel carpark, subject to feedback from Auckland Council Parks and Community Facilities.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

31. The RLBTTR supports the outcomes sought by the Auckland Plan 2050, the Auckland Climate Action Plan, the Rodney Local Board Plan 2023 and Auckland Council priorities regarding mitigating the effects of climate change and reducing the council’s carbon emissions. It funds projects that enable better access to active and public transport, namely footpaths, bus services, bus infrastructure and community transport hub facilities.

32. Auckland Transport strives to provide attractive alternatives to private vehicle travel, reduce the carbon footprint of its own operations and, to the extent feasible, that of the contracted public transport network. Many of these projects support pedestrian and/or cyclist safety, therefore contributing to climate change actions.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

33. The appropriate council group inputs were sought by Auckland Transport in the formulation of this report.

34. Auckland Transport receives updates from Auckland Council regarding the latest RLBTTR revenue figures.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

35. The local board is the decision-maker for funds collected through the RLBTTR. Auckland Council receives the rates payments and Auckland Transport provides technical advice and administers the funds on behalf of the local board.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

36. This report has no identified impacts or opportunities for Māori. Engagement with Māori, giving consideration of impacts and opportunities for Māori has been progressed through Auckland Transport’s Mana Whenua Northern Hui.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

37. This report highlights the allocation of funds across current and future financial years. The 10-year financial position of RLBTTR should not be affected.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

38. Any increases in the cost estimate of any projects agreed by the local board will need formal approval via resolution at a business meeting.

39. The projects being developed under the RLBTTR programme are subject to the usual project risks including scope changes and cost escalation associated with the development of detailed design plans. To mitigate this risk Auckland Transport will monitor, manage and report significant potential risks and seek approval from the local board on changes.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

40. Auckland Transport will continue working on the programme elements previously resolved by the local board, incorporating any new direction received.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Graeme Gunthorp – Programme Director – Auckland Transport

Authorisers

Beth Houlbrooke – Elected Member Relationship Partner (North)

Lesley Jenkins – Local Area Manager

Rodney Local Board

19 March 2025

Auckland Transport Kōkiri - Setting priorities for project and programme engagement

File No.: CP2025/03607

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To receive Auckland Transport’s proposed Forward Works Programme 2025/2026 (Attachment A to the agenda report) and confirm the level of engagement for the prioritised projects.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Auckland Transport has been building a more structured and effective process for local boards to engage with and influence transport projects and programmes.

3. The Kōkiri Agreement is the local board’s engagement plan with Auckland Transport’s work programme.

4. At this stage in the second year of Kōkiri (part of the Local Board Relationship Project), Auckland Transport is seeking formal views on the proposed work programme for 2025/2026.

5. Auckland Transport workshopped the forward works programme with the local board on 4 December 2024 and 12 February 2025 to aid developing views on priorities.

6. Once the local board provides formal views, Auckland Transport will provide a response via memo to the local board before delivering the draft local board transport agreement (Kōkiri) to the June 2025 business meetings for adoption.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) tono / request Auckland Transport apply the following levels of engagement to the projects in the Forward Works Programme 2025/2026 (Attachment A):

Collaborate (Auckland Transport and the local board are working together to deliver the project or programme):

i) Local Board Transport Capital Fund projects

ii) Rodney Local Board Transport Targeted Rate Funded projects

Consult (Auckland Transport leads the project or programme but works with the local board providing opportunities to input into the plan):

iii) Unsealed Road Improvements Programme

iv) Mahoenui Valley Road Zebra Crossing project

Inform (Auckland Transport leads the project or programme informing the local board about progress):

v) Glenmore Drive, Warkworth footpath project

vi) Parkhurst Road, Parakai footpath project

vii) Falls Road, Warkworth footpath project

viii) Warkworth town centre safety improvement programme

ix) Bus stop improvements

x) Hill Street intersection Warkworth improvements

xi) Mill Flat Road, Riverhead bridge replacement project

xii) Route protection of the Warkworth future strategic transport network

xiii) New transport infrastructure projects in the Milldale development

b) tono / request the following projects or programmes be considered for inclusion in Auckland Transport’s work programme in a future year:

i) Mahurangi East Road pedestrian crossing between Iris Street and Dalton Road

ii) development and adoption of a Rural Roads design guide

iii) increased bus services and infrastructure throughout the local board area.

Horopaki

Context

Project Kōkiri

7. In mid-2023, Kōkiri was initiated to build a more structured and supportive relationship between local boards and Auckland Transport.

8. The project was in part a response to the 2020 review of Auckland Council’s Council-controlled Organisations which highlighted the need for local boards and Auckland Transport to work more meaningfully and collaboratively.

9. Auckland Transport has taken steps to improve information flow and local board decision-making, including:

· instituting an annual forward works programme briefing for all local boards

· increasing the number of updates sent to local boards

· providing local board insights in all project engagement

· participating in Auckland Council’s Council-controlled Organisations Engagement Plan reporting.

10. Auckland Transport aims to provide a better basis for communication and understanding of roles, responsibilities, limitations, and opportunities.

11. The overall purpose of this process is to identify local board interest in Auckland Transport projects and programmes and to clearly express the preferred levels of local board engagement.

12. The levels of engagement with the local board are derived from the International Association for Public Participation’s (IAP2) Public Participation Spectrum; and are as follows:

Level of participation	Commitment to the local board
Collaborate	Auckland Transport and the local board are working together to deliver the project or programme. The local board leads the process of building community consensus. The local board’s input and advice are used to formulate solutions and develop plans. Local board feedback is incorporated into the plan to the maximum extent possible.
Consult	Auckland Transport leads the project or programme but works with the local board providing opportunities to input into the plan. If possible, Auckland Transport incorporates the local board’s feedback into the plan; and if it is not able to provides clear reasons for that decision.
Inform	Auckland Transport leads the project or programme informing the local board about progress. Local board members may be asked to provide their local knowledge and insight by Auckland Transport, however there is no expectation that the project must be modified based on that input.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

13. Auckland Transport first provided advice on the forward works programme at the local board’s workshop on 4 December 2024.

14. The local board had an additional workshop on the forward works programme with their Auckland Transport Elected Member Relationship Partner on 12 February 2025.

15. Auckland Transport recommends that the local board prioritises work programme items aligned to transport goals stated in their local board plan.

16. The local board is requested to prioritise a list of projects and programmes for each of the three levels of engagement (collaborate, consult and inform).

17. Auckland Transport resource is limited. Projects in the collaborate and consult require significant staff and elected member time such as:

· providing quality advice, including technical advice on options and their costs as well as benefit analysis. Often this advice involves written advice and the opportunity to ask experts questions at a workshop

· considering the advice: time is required for members to process and understand the advice provided

· making a formal decision, i.e. feedback about a project or programme requires a report to be submitted and a resolution made at a public meeting.

18. Auckland Transport recommends the local board reserves categorising projects in collaborate and consult for the projects of highest priority, such as local board transport capital fund projects.

19. Other projects and programmes that could be considered at the ‘collaborate’ level include any projects which the local board has delegated financial control over either by Auckland Transport, council or by another government agency like New Zealand Transport Agency.

20. There may also be projects or programmes that a local board wants to deliver but are not currently identified in Auckland Transport planning. Local boards may choose to advocate for these projects or programmes.

21. There may be projects or programmes that the local board considers are not supported by the community it represents. This report provides an opportunity for the local board to express its community’s concerns about proposed work. Auckland Transport will consider and may decide not to proceed with these projects based on the local board’s feedback.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

22. Auckland Transport engages closely with the council on developing strategy, actions and measures to support the outcomes sought by the Auckland Plan 2050, the Auckland Climate Action Plan and the council’s priorities.

23. Auckland Transport reviews the potential climate impacts of all projects and works hard to minimise carbon emissions. Auckland Transport’s work programme is influenced by council direction through Te-Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

24. In 2022, the mayor provided Auckland Transport with a Letter of Expectation which directed Auckland Transport to improve the relationship with local boards, including providing more opportunity to influence decision-making. Specifically, that:

“The Statement of Intent 2023-2026 must set out how Auckland Transport will achieve closer Local Board involvement in the design and planning stage of local transport projects that affect their communities.”

25. Auckland Transport’s ‘2023-2026 Statement of Intent’ reflects this direction stating that:

“We (Auckland Transport) will engage more meaningfully and transparently with Local Boards, recognising that they represent their communities, and that they should have greater involvement in local transport projects that affect those communities. This means a genuine partnership where we seek to understand the unique and diverse needs of each Local Board at a regional level, not just by project. We will work in partnership to integrate those needs into our planning. We will support Local Boards to communicate integrated local transport planning to their communities.”

26. Project Kōkiri provides an annual process where local boards prioritise a group of key programmes or projects, identifying them to Auckland Transport, and setting engagement levels that capture the local board’s expectations. This plan forms the basis for regular reporting on key programmes and projects. Project Kōkiri will be supported by regular updates to provide transparency.

27. Project Kōkiri was developed working closely with Auckland Council’s Governance Division. It has also been reported generally monthly to the Local Board Chair’s Forum and discussed with a reference group of local board chairs.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

28. The local board had a forward works programme workshop on 4 December 2024 to receive quality advice on the programme. The response from both elected members and staff supporting local boards has been positive and specifically supportive of the large amount and quality of information provided, the detailed discussion with subject matter experts, and attendance at workshops by Auckland Transport executive leaders.

29. There was an additional workshop on 12 February 2025 with the Auckland Transport Elected Member Relationship Partner to discuss the proposed programme and help support the local board to develop its views.

30. At that workshop, in addition to projects identified in the planned Forward Works Programme for engagement, the local board specifically requested to add at an ‘inform’ level of engagement, new transport infrastructure projects in the Milldale development.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

31. Auckland Transport is committed to meeting its responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its broader legal obligations in being more responsible or effective to Māori.

32. Auckland Transport’s Māori Responsiveness Plan outlines the commitment to 19 mana whenua tribes in delivering effective and well-designed transport policy and solutions for Auckland. We also recognise mataawaka and their representative bodies and our desire to foster a relationship with them. This plan is available on the Auckland Transport website - https://at.govt.nz/about-us/transport-plans-strategies/maori-responsiveness-plan/#about

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

33. This decision has no financial implications to the local board budget as Auckland Transport funds all projects and programmes.

34. Local boards do have a transport budget through the Local Board Transport Capital Fund however, its financial implications are reported separately.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

35. The proposed decision does carry some risk. The local board needs to be able to commit to the time required for the level of engagement requested. If decisions are not able to be made or are slowed down by local board decision-making, there can be significant financial costs to Auckland Transport and therefore the ratepayer.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

36. Auckland Transport may engage with the local board directly after receiving their formal resolutions to clarify positions or to discuss the proposed levels of engagement.

37. By mid-May 2025, Auckland Transport will provide a memo outlining its response to the local board’s resolution. This memo will provide the basis for future engagement.

38. In June 2025, Auckland Transport will provide a report with an attached annual ‘Kōkiri’ (local board transport agreement) stating how Auckland Transport and the local board will engage over the next 12 months.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Forward Works Programme 2025/2026 presentation (Under Separate Cover)

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Beth Houlbrooke – Elected Member Relationship Partner

Authorisers

John Gillespie - Head Stakeholder＆Community Engagement

Lesley Jenkins – Local Area Manager

Auckland Transport Kōkiri / Local Board Transport Agreement quarterly update - March 2025

File No.: CP2025/03611

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide an update on projects in the local board’s Kōkiri / Local Board Transport Agreement 2024/2025 (Kōkiri Agreement).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Kōkiri Agreement 2024/2025 is the local board’s engagement plan with Auckland Transport ’s work programme.

3. Developing the agreement is an annual process. During this process Auckland Transport provides advice on its work programme, seeks feedback from the local board, responds to this feedback, and establishes an endorsed plan for engaging on work in the local board area.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) whiwhi / receive the March 2025 quarterly update on the Kōkiri / Local Board Transport Agreement 2024/2025.

Horopaki

Context

4. In mid-2023, development of the Kōkiri Agreement was initiated to build a more structured and supportive relationship between local boards and Auckland Transport. The Kōkiri Agreement is formed through an annual process that includes the following steps:

Timeline	Action
October/November	Auckland Transport provides quality advice to local boards on the next financial year’s work programme.
March	Local boards provide their feedback, prioritise projects or programmes, and request levels of engagement for each project.
April/May	Auckland Transport responds to that feedback, and a Kōkiri Agreement is written for each local board.
June/July	Auckland Transport seeks formal endorsement of the Kōkiri Agreement from local boards.

5. In addition to the development of the Kōkiri Agreement, Auckland Transport reports quarterly on the prioritised projects and programmes listed in the local board’s Kōkiri Agreement.

6. This process provides a clear annual structure for engaging with Auckland Transport. Local boards are able to influence Auckland Transport’s work programme through the annual Kōkiri Agreement process.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

7. Kōkiri Agreements prioritise the projects or programmes that are of most interest to the local board. Clear local board prioritisation provides Auckland Transport with expectations of transport related objectives, in addition to the objectives provided in the local board plan. This information helps Auckland Transport to either inform its planning or to offer better explanations for why certain projects or programmes cannot be delivered.

8. However, plans evolve and change, so Auckland Transport reports quarterly on the progress of projects in the Kōkiri Agreement. This means that local boards are kept informed and have a regular opportunity to provide formal feedback to Auckland Transport about their work programme.

9. The levels of engagement with the local board in the Kōkiri Agreement are derived from the International Association for Public Participation’s (IAP2) Public Participation Spectrum and are as follows:

Level of participation	Commitment to the local board
Collaborate	Auckland Transport and the local board work together to deliver the project or programme. The local board leads the process of building community consensus. The local board’s input and advice are used to formulate solutions and develop plans. Local board feedback is incorporated into the plan to the maximum extent possible.
Consult	Auckland Transport leads the project or programme but works with the local board, providing opportunities to input into the plan. If possible, Auckland Transport incorporates the local board’s feedback into the plan, and if it is not able to, provides clear reasons for that decision.
Inform	Auckland Transport leads the project or programme informing the local board about progress. Local board members may be asked to provide their local knowledge and insight by Auckland Transport, however there is no expectation that the project must be modified based on that input.

10. Attachment A to the agenda report provides updates about all projects and programmes currently listed in this local board’s Kōkiri Agreement 2024/2025.

11. Attachment B to the agenda report is the quarterly update on road maintenance activities.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

12. Auckland Transport engages closely with the council on developing strategy, actions and measures to support the outcomes sought by the Auckland Plan 2050, the Auckland Climate Action Plan and the council’s priorities.

13. Auckland Transport reviews the potential climate impacts of all projects and works hard to minimise carbon emissions. Auckland Transport’s work programme is influenced by council direction through Te-Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

14. The Kōkiri Agreement is a product of the Local Board Relationship Project. Auckland Transport started the project in response to a 2022 ‘Letter of Expectation’ directive from the mayor that stated in part that:

“The Statement of Intent 2023-2026 must set out how Auckland Transport will achieve closer local board involvement in the design and planning stage of local transport projects that affect their communities.”

15. The Kōkiri Agreement gives effect to this intent. Auckland Transport receives local board feedback via regular engagement. Auckland Transport also surveys local board members quarterly about engagement, providing an indication of satisfaction.

16. The Kōkiri Agreement was developed working closely with Auckland Council’s Governance and Engagement Department.

17. The Kōkiri Agreement is reported to the Local Board Chair’s Forum on a regular basis.

18. This work relies on historical engagement with both Auckland Council and with other major council-controlled organisations through the previous joint council-controlled organisations engagement plans.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

19. The local board endorsed the Kōkiri Agreement 2024/2025 at their 17 July 2024 business meeting. This report provides a quarterly update on projects in the agreement.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

20. Auckland Transport is committed to meeting its responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its broader legal obligations in being more responsible or effective to Māori.

21. Auckland Transport’s Māori Responsiveness Plan outlines the commitment to 19 mana whenua in delivering effective and well-designed transport policy and solutions for Auckland. We also recognise mataawaka and their representative bodies and our desire to foster a relationship with them. This plan is available on the Auckland Transport website - https://at.govt.nz/about-us/transport-plans-strategies/maori-responsiveness-plan/#about

22. The Kōkiri Agreement is focused on Auckland Transport’s interaction with local boards, as such Māori input was not sought at a programme level. However, when individual projects or operational activities have impact on water or land, Auckland Transport engages with iwi to seek their views. These views are shared in reports seeking decisions from the local board.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

23. Generally, this report has limited financial implications for the local board because Auckland Transport funds all projects and programmes. However, local boards do have a transport budget, called the Local Board Transport Capital Fund.

24. Updates on the Local Board Transport Capital Fund projects are included in this report (Attachment A), but financial implications are reported separately, in project specific decision reports.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

25. If a local board provides any formal direction on changes to the Kōkiri Agreement, there are risks to consider. The local board needs to be able to commit to the time required for the level of engagement requested. If decisions are not able to be made or are slowed down by local board decision-making, there can be significant financial costs.

26. Auckland Transport suggests that this risk is mitigated by the local board providing sufficient workshop time to allow for timely discussion of activities listed in Kōkiri Agreement.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

27. Following this meeting Auckland Transport will respond to any additional resolutions.

28. The next quarterly report is planned for June 2025.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Kōkiri quarterly update - March 2025	73
b ⇩	Kōkiri quartertly maintenance and renewals update March 2025	79

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Beth Houlbrooke – Elected Member Relationship Partner

Authorisers

John Gillespie – Head Stakeholder＆Community Engagement

Lesley Jenkins – Local Area Manager

Rodney Local Board

19 March 2025

Feedback on options to address local board operating cost pressures for Annual Budget 2025/2026

File No.: CP2025/04231

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide feedback on options to manage local board cost pressures in the context of Fairer Funding, for reporting back to the Joint Governance Working Party in April 2025, to support a recommendation to the Governing Body for Annual Budget 2025/2026.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Fairer Funding was adopted through the Long-term Plan 2024-2034 (LTP), to be implemented from 1 July 2025 (year two of the LTP). This included new funding of $84 million operating and $50 million capital over two years to transition most local boards significantly closer to funding equity. $35 million of new operating funding was planned for in 2025/2026 and allocated to local boards through the LTP.

3. Through the council’s Annual Budget 2025/2026 refresh process, staff have identified that some costs are forecast to be higher than previously anticipated, and operating revenue budgets set in the LTP are at risk of not being achieved. In a memorandum to the Budget Committee and local board members on 2 December 2024 (Attachment B to the agenda report), staff provided an update on this emerging issue but did not recommend local boards take urgent action at that point or propose material service changes in their consultation materials based on these early indications.

4. Thirteen local boards (identified as funded below their equitable levels) were allocated a portion of the $35 million new operating funding in 2025/2026 exceeding their individual cost pressures, however there are eight local boards (that were identified as funded at or above their equitable levels) which were allocated little or no additional funding, and staff anticipate the level of implementable advice and options available to these local boards will be insufficient to fully mitigate the size of their individual cost pressures without materially impacting service levels.

5. After a recent budget refresh exercise, which concluded in February, the revised total cost pressures and revenue shortfalls identified for local community services is $13.9 million across 21 local boards, comprising of:

· Known variations to asset schedules within full facility contracts (subject to final price negotiation) were not budgeted for in the LTP, $5.1 million

· Utilities costs (driven primarily by Electricity and Gas forecasted prices), $5.8 million

· Improved libraries rostering to meet health and safety requirements, reduce the likelihood of unplanned facility closures and deliver planned levels of service, $1.5 million

· Revenue shortfalls from pools and leisure facilities and venue for hire, $2.4 million

· Improvements in leasing revenue is an overall net positive contribution of $0.3 million, however this differs by local board. Where they are net positive, this could be used to mitigate the effect of cost pressures. Leasing revenue improvements can arise because of local board decisions.

6. While this initial budget refresh exercise has been completed, staff are continuing to investigate the cost pressures to identify mitigations and other offset opportunities.

7. Between 4 and 6 March 2025, finance staff workshopped with all local boards the updated local board budget position (based on the best available information), including individual local board positions, and options to manage the collective local board cost pressures. A further budget update since these workshops has occurred (and local boards informed through a memo), reducing the overall cost pressures for local boards from $18 million to $13.9 million.

8. This report seeks local board feedback on the three potential options and is an opportunity for local boards to provide their views including other matters relating to local cost pressures to the Joint Governance Working Party, to support a recommendation to the Governing Body for Annual Budget 2025/2026

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) tuku / provide feedback on the three identified options to manage local board cost pressures in the short term

b) tuku / provide feedback on any other matters relating to local board cost pressures and budgets.

Horopaki

Context

9. Fairer Funding was adopted through the Long-term Plan 2024-2034 (LTP) and is to be implemented from 1 July 2025 (year two of the LTP) to transition towards significant funding equity for most local boards over four years, including the allocation of $35 million of new operating funding to 13 local boards for 2025/2026. Eight local boards have been allocated little to no new funding.

10. Cost pressures can arise when the costs of delivering a service are forecast to increase beyond what is projected in the LTP. These can occur as new information becomes available after the adoption of an LTP or Annual Plan, and budgeting assumptions are updated.

11. The total net operating cost pressures identified for local community services for 2025/2026 is $18 million and relate to ‘asset-based services’. This is the total across all 21 local boards and does not include cost pressures relating to any other area of the council group operations.

12. Operating cost pressures relating to networks of asset-based services (e.g. pools, libraries, open space maintenance) have historically been managed across local boards at a regional level by the Governing Body. In this approach additional levers are available, such as changes to the level and distribution of general rates funding and minimum service levels. There is also the ability for staff to drive efficiencies across the regional network, and to manage “unders and overs” across that network.

13. Local boards have two main levers for responding to cost pressures in the short term. These are:

a) utilising new operating funding from their share of the $35 million in 2025/2026 provided to support a transition to Fairer Funding, or

b) by making changes to services including prioritisation and trade-off decisions across their service portfolio.

14. Staff also have some levers available to help manage the costs and revenues for asset-based services as part of their day-to-day operational management of these services.

15. The eight local boards that will not receive sufficient new funding would need to respond to cost pressures by reviewing service levels, making prioritisation and trade-off decisions to remain within their existing funding levels, and then work with staff to ensure the efficient delivery of those services. However, staff do not expect the level of implementable options and advice available for 2025/2026 to be sufficient to cover the full amount of their individual cost pressures.

16. On 14 February 2025, staff presented a report to the Joint Governance Working Party (JGWP) about cost pressures for local boards, how local boards can currently manage these cost pressures, and possible transitional support which the JGWP could recommend to the Governing Body as part of annual budget decision making. This report is included in Attachment A to the agenda report. At this time the updated local cost pressure position was unknown, however since then, updated estimates of cost pressures have been forecasted.

17. The JGWP resolved (resolution JGWPC/2025/4) on three potential options to address local board cost pressures in the short term, and has requested staff seek formal local board feedback on these to support a recommendation to the Governing Body for Annual Budget 2025/2026:

i) Local boards manage within existing local board funding envelopes

ii) Recalibration of the $35 million operating funding increase (for local boards) in 2025/2026

iii) Seeking additional funding to accommodate cost pressures including utilising the Delivering Differently budget.

18. As operating cost pressures are ongoing, local boards should also consider in their feedback, how this would be managed for future years.

19. Staff will collate local board feedback and report back to the JGWP in April to support a recommendation to the Governing Body, per JGWPC/2025/4 c).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

20. Through the budget refresh process staff identified $13.9 million of net operating cost pressures related to delivering existing levels of service for local community services. The distribution by local board is presented below. Staff are continuing to investigate these cost pressures, including identifying mitigations, and have identified some regional scheduled maintenance costs were incorrectly attributed to local boards. A memo was distributed to all local boards on 12 March 2025 explaining the corrections, and this has reduced the total net operating cost pressures to $13.9 million from the $18 million presented in workshops, as presented in Table 1 below.

Table 1: distribution of cost pressures to local boards

21. Analysis was completed to compare the level of individual local board cost pressures against each local board’s allocation from the new operating funding in 2025/2026. This is because the new funding is yet to be allocated towards a service or activity, and if this was used to cover cost pressures, there would not be an impact to existing service levels.

22. Analysis showed that 13 local boards had sufficient new operating funding to cover their individual cost pressures, however this would result in a reduction of up to 61 per cent in their new operating funding, which was provided for the purpose of funding equity and which local boards expected to deliver additional outcomes for their communities.

23. Eight local boards with little to no new funding would only have the option to look across existing services to find cost reductions or revenue opportunities to offset cost pressures. However, advice on strategic options and opportunities for local boards to change asset-based services to reduce cost will initially be limited. Advice is more readily available for activities currently funded from ‘Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI)’ operating funding which is a only a small proportion of the local board operating costs.

24. For these eight local boards, this could mean between 36 per cent and 84 per cent funding reduction from their existing ‘Locally Driven Initiatives’ programme of services and activities. Changes at this level are likely to be material to existing levels of services, as most of these services and activities have been ongoing for many years and are designed to achieve local board plan outcomes. Any material changes to existing levels of service are likely to trigger a requirement for public consultation; however local boards were not recommended to consult in detail on specific opportunities in the Annual Budget 2025/2026 consultation. Therefore, this gives rise to a risk that certain opportunities may not be implementable unless further consultation is held.

Table 2: analysis of cost pressures compared to available funding by local board

Supporting a transition to fairer funding

25. To support this significant shift in the way local boards are funded, some key principles and assumptions were agreed as part of the adoption of Fairer Funding:

· No local board is worse off in its level of funding (than under the prior ABS/LDI funding model).

· Achieving significant funding equity for most local boards in four years.

26. The level of implementable advice across local community services and environmental management may not be available for the Annual Budget 2025/2026 to fully cover the full quantum of local boards individual cost pressures. Additional options to address local cost pressures in the short term have been developed for JGWP consideration to help all local boards transition to the new way of funding.

Options analysis for addressing local board cost pressures

27. The Joint Governance Working Party on 14 February 2025 (resolution JGWPC/2025/4) requested staff to seek local board feedback on the following potential options to address local board cost pressures in the short term:

i) Local boards manage within existing local board funding envelopes

ii) Recalibration of the $35 million operating funding increase (for local boards) in 2025/2026

iii) Seeking additional funding to accommodate cost pressures including utilising the Delivering Differently budget.

28. A combination of options will likely be needed to resolve the full range and quantum of cost pressures for 2025/2026, but consideration should also be given to whether these options should be temporary (e.g. one year) or implemented for a longer period (e.g. two years, or on an ongoing basis).

29. Based on of the current projected size of local cost pressures it is unlikely any overall funding changes to local boards would be considered significant (per council’s Significance and Engagement Policy), and therefore would not require public consultation to implement. However, changes to local funding levels requires a Governing Body decision.

30. A Governing Body decision is required to implement options 2 and 3 as these involve a change to how funding for local boards is distributed and involves a departure from the adopted Local Board Funding Policy 2025.

Option 1: Local boards manage within existing local board funding envelopes

31. This option requires local boards to fund services within LTP funding allocations, including any new funding received. This is in line with the Local Board Funding Policy 2025, makes progress towards bringing 19 local boards to within 5 per cent of their equitable funding level in 2025/2026, and places no additional burden on ratepayers.

32. Under this approach local boards would address cost pressures by:

i) Utilising new operating funding

ii) Adopting and seeking staff advice on opportunities to increase revenue or reduce costs in some areas to make room for increased costs in others. These may include minor changes to services, or trade-off decisions across a range of locally funded services and must be implementable in time to support the 2025/2026 Annual Budget (including re-consultation if significant)

iii) Working with staff during the financial year to continuously seek out cost efficiencies and revenue enhancements for asset-based services as part of their day-to-day operational management of these services.

33. Local boards that will not receive any new funding, or that will receive insufficient new funding to address cost pressures, are limited to available staff advice on opportunities and changes to services. The implications of delays to the provision of advice over their portfolio of services until 2026/2027 may mean that local boards look to more flexible areas of their funding, which are well understood and supported with staff advice (for example services and activities previously funded from LDI). Reducing these services may impact on the delivery of local board plan outcomes.

34. Based on initial estimates of local cost pressures, staff had advised that local boards did not need to consult on significant service level changes, therefore seven of the eight local boards with little to no new funding consulted broadly on priorities. This limits the level of implementable opportunities without having to further consult.

Option 2: Recalibration of the $35 million operating funding increase for local boards in 2025/2026

35. Of the $35 million new operating funding in 2025/2026 provided to support the transition to funding equity, a portion could be used to provide temporary support for local boards unable to fully offset cost pressures. Some of the additional funding may not otherwise be utilised if there are insufficient options and advice on new and increased service levels. This would involve allocating funding to local boards with little to no new funding to address cost pressures from the $35 million new funding, then distributing the remainder based on the equitable rankings.

36. The impact of using this option is that local boards that were allocated additional operating funding would see a reduction to that level of operating funding, with the reduction in the level of operating funding used to cover cost pressures from other local boards.

37. Based on the budget information at end of February 2025, modelling was carried out and presented to local boards showing the impact should all local cost pressures be covered from the $35 million new funding first, with the remainder distributed equitably as per the Local Board Funding Policy 2025. Since then there has been a reduction to the overall size of local cost pressures from $18 million to $13.9 million, which means the modelled impact is expected to be less than what was presented through workshops.

38. However, this is only one possible scenario, and there are various ways this option can be applied, including:

· whether all local cost pressures are covered from the $35 million first, or only for those local boards that cannot cover their own

· the proportion of local cost pressures covered from the $35 million first, and this could be on a scale from zero per cent to 100 per cent.

39. This option would represent slightly less progress towards funding equity for the 2025/2026 year than anticipated in the LTP. This approach remains consistent with a transition to equitable funding over four years and places no additional burden on ratepayers should it be used temporarily, until sufficient advice is available and implementable for local boards to manage cost pressures over their full portfolio of services.

Option 3: Seeking additional funding to accommodate cost pressures, including utilising the Delivering Differently budget

40. The Governing Body is responsible for decision making on the overall funding level for local boards and could allocate additional local funding to support cost pressures. This could be achieved without increasing general rates within the existing overall LTP funding level if there are sufficient improvements to other assumptions (such as interest rates and depreciation costs), or by balancing the application of funding across a wider range of services including regional activities. These options are not available to local boards, and any new local targeted rates could not be implemented in time for 2025/2026.

41. Once budget projections have been fully updated across the group, it will be clearer whether or not the emerging cost pressures for local services can be accommodated within the currently projected rates increase for 2025/2026. If it can be, then it will be up to the Governing Body to approve that allocation, after considering budget trade-offs across the group. If it cannot be, then the Governing Body is expected to be able to have some flexibility to make minor adjustments to the rates increase as part of its final budget decision-making in May 2025. However, the current political direction on this is clear that a higher rates increase is the last resort.

42. While progress will still be made towards funding equity, any permanent direct funding provided to individual local boards to address cost pressures is an inequitable way of distributing general rates funding and would increase the challenge of progressing towards full funding equity. This also departs from the adopted Local Board Funding Policy 2025.

43. Under this option, additional funding could be provided for one or more years until sufficient advice is available for local boards to manage cost pressures and could be managed at a regional level to be provided to local boards as needed to minimise the impact on funding equity.

44. The Joint Governance Working Party resolved specifically for staff to investigate whether the Delivering Differently budget could be used to temporarily resolve local cost pressures. The majority of the funding for this programme is debt funded (such as capital grants) which cannot be re-purposed to mitigate local operational cost pressures. The remaining funding is for the purpose of supporting local boards shift away from asset-based service provision and future unaffordable renewals, and it‘s important that progress on this work continues.

Summary of options and risks

45. The following table summarises the impact, risks and alignment to the proposed principles for each option. A combination of options may be used to resolve the level of cost pressures for local boards in both 2025/2026 and beyond.

Option	Risks and/or impacts
Option 1: Local boards manage within existing local board funding envelopes	· Advice not fully ready across local board service portfolio to implement for 2025/2026. · Activities and services with advice to respond this year may be limited to those tailored to local priorities and reducing these will impact the delivery of local board plan outcomes.
Option 2: Recalibration of the $35 million operating funding increase for local boards in 2025/2026	· Funding equity gap between local boards would be slightly larger than planned (5 per cent of funding equity by 2025/2026). · A one-year approach would mean local boards may have cumulative cost pressures to solve in the next year. · Continued application would slow progress to significant funding equity in subsequent years. · Perceived retreat on historical commitments made through the LTP for individual local boards.
Option 3: Seeking additional funding to accommodate cost pressures including utilising the Delivering Differently budget	· Could impact on other services, including regional services, as a result of funding reallocation. · Inequitably allocating additional funding to local boards departs from funding policy and slows progress towards equitable funding.

Improvements to budget and cost allocation accuracy

46. Through the Annual Budget 2025/2026 budget refresh process, staff identified over $25 million of costs and budget held in regional community services but are related to the delivery of existing levels of local community services. These relate to services that are managed across the region (or at a network level), with financials also historically being managed at a regional level.

47. Implementing these cost allocation changes through Annual Budget reviews will impact local funding envelopes and funding equity. While changes to baseline budgets are typically made when the Fairer Funding model is refreshed in the next LTP to align with the frequency of review specified in the Local Board Funding Policy 2025, some necessary improvements to the accuracy of budgets may be required to support effective management and local board governance.

48. Allocation of these costs and funding will not be based on an equitable distribution as these are considered adjustments to baseline budgets, instead of new local funding. An example would be where there are Pools and Leisure centralised costs to be allocated to local boards, only those local boards with Pools and Leisure sites will receive an allocation of costs and funding. Changes that impact baseline budgets would impact funding equity analysis and local board rankings, however, should not impact the total cost to the council or planned service levels, as they are a change to how costs and funding is allocated only.

49. There will be no cost pressures for 2025/2026 associated with these cost and funding transfers for local boards, nor any impacts on the existing levels of service being delivered in each local board.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

50. Local board feedback through this report will inform the Joint Governance Working Party on a recommendation to the Governing Body on decisions for local board funding levels. This may have varying impacts on individual local board level of investments in local services and activities, which may have climate impacts.

51. In particular, local boards contribute to climate outcomes through their local environmental work programmes (currently funded through their LDI operating funding) and therefore the scale of cost reductions required to fund the cost pressures could result in significant impacts to local environmental work programmes. The decision for local board funding will have a direct impact on the level of funding that can be allocated towards local environmental work programmes. This includes reductions, but also the scale of new initiatives contributing towards climate outcomes.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

52. Staff from the Finance and Community divisions provided input into the report for the Joint Governance Working Party and have developed the list of local community cost pressures for the 2025/2026 Annual Budget through reviewing the costs of delivering existing levels of services.

53. Staff will continue to improve the quality and range of advice for local boards over the four years transitioning to significant funding equity. This could have impacts on the operations of the Community Division which may need to adapt to the new funding structure of local community services, and improvements to how local services are being budgeted.

54. Some options for feedback in this report require Governing Body decisions on funding and may need to be considered together with the entire council group financial position and budget updates. The views of council-controlled organisations were not required for the preparation of this report’s advice.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

55. In a memorandum to Budget Committee and local board members on 2 December 2024 (Attachment B), staff provided an update on this emerging issue but did not recommend local boards take urgent action at that point or propose material service changes in their consultation materials based on these early indications. Seven local boards have consulted broadly on priorities but not specific cost reduction initiatives.

56. Finance staff workshopped the updated budget position and options to manage the collective cost pressures with local boards between 4 and 6 March 2025. This report seeks local board feedback on the options presented and is an opportunity for local boards to provide their views to the Joint Governance Working Party.

57. The identified $13.9 million net operating cost pressures is over a third of the $34.6 million additional operating funding provided to local boards to progress towards funding equity. Individual local board impacts were workshopped with local boards, based on the $18 million cost pressures identified at that time. However subsequently staff identified through a detailed review, updates to the budgets presented, which has reduced the total net operating cost pressures to $13.9 million (Table 1 in this report).

58. Under Fairer Funding, 13 local boards are able to cover their individual cost pressures using new operating funding allocated to achieve funding equity purposes, however this will reduce the level of new operating available to these local boards to improve community outcomes. The proportion of new operating funding required to cover cost pressures for individual local boards can be up to 61 per cent of their allocated new operating funding.

59. Eight local boards would be unable to address their individual cost pressures without making reductions to existing services, and there is unlikely to be sufficient cost reduction or revenue generating options available for local boards which can be implemented for 2025/2026 to offset the entirety of their cost pressures.

60. The options provided intend to assist all local boards in transitioning to funding equity over time, and depending on the combination of options may change individual local board funding envelopes compared to the LTP.

61. A feedback template has been provided (Attachment C to the agenda report) to assist local boards in providing feedback to this report.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

62. Local board feedback through this report will inform the Joint Governance Working Party on a recommendation to the Governing Body on decisions for local board funding levels. This may have varying impacts on individual local board level of investments in local services and activities, which may have Māori impacts depending on each local board’s specific community.

63. The decision for local board funding will have a direct impact on local board work programming which is the process where local boards prioritise their available funding towards achieving local board plan outcomes for their community, including impacts to their Māori community. This includes reductions, but also the scale of new initiatives contributing towards Māori outcomes.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

64. Some of the options proposed in this report for further engagement will impact local board funding decisions and council’s overall funding levels for this Annual Budget 2025/2026, but would be subject to further Governing Body decision making. Full detail on risks, mitigation and implications are outlined in the earlier sections of this report, and in more detail below.

65. Feedback on this report informs the Joint Governance Working Party and inputs into Governing Body Annual Budget decision making.

66. Some options for managing cost pressures would have no impact to rates by requiring these to be managed within existing local board funding envelopes or the wider Auckland Council Group (subject to Governing Body decision making). However, there may be a risk that an increase in rates is required to fund cost pressures, and this would only be clear once the Governing Body is presented with a budget update for the Auckland Council Group.

67. The final decisions to manage local cost pressures may have a direct impact on the level of funding each local board is allocated and may vary the funding levels set out in the LTP.

68. Options where the level of funding to local boards are set on a non-equitable distribution, including any targeted operating funding support provided, requires the decision maker, which is Governing Body, to agree to a temporary departure from the Local Board Funding Policy 2025 adopted through the LTP.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

69. There are significant risks identified with the uncertainty of local board annual funding envelopes and available funding, which has resulted in challenges for staff to plan for and engage with local boards to participate effectively in work programme discussions and to meet key annual budget timelines with sufficient levels of clarity and understanding. This is because options which alter local board funding require Governing Body decision-making, and based on the current timeline, Annual Budget decisions are set to be made on 28 May 2025. A mitigation being confirmed is for a recommendation from the JGWP to be presented to the Budget Committee on 16 April 2025, seeking indicative support for later formal decision-making by the Governing Body.

70. There is a risk should the Governing Body not decide to provide additional support to local boards. Given the updated size of local cost pressures it is unlikely that options with a minor impact to service levels could fully mitigate these for local boards not receiving top-up funding. Eight local boards are therefore at risk of not being able to approve a balanced budget by June 2025 without additional support or further consultation in a short timeframe on further reductions which are considered significant (under council’s Significance and Engagement Policy).

71. Some proposed options will have financial and reputational risks to council as these could be perceived as changes to the commitments made in the LTP, such as changing the allocation of funding levels for individual local boards.

72. There are also risks relating to the timeframe for the council to develop the necessary improvements to financial budget data and process improvements, and to develop the capability to provide local boards with advice on options for changing service levels and how local services can be more efficiently delivered. Some improvements to local board data and increased staff advice are expected from 2026/2027, however these will not be across the full portfolio of services. A longer-term solution is anticipated to require the full transition period to funding equity of four years.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

73. Staff will collate local board feedback and report back to the Joint Governance Working Party on 11 April 2025 to seek recommendations from JGWP to the Governing Body for Annual Budget decision making.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Options to address local board operating cost pressures and their impact on Fairer Funding implementation – (14 February 2025 JGWP)	95
b ⇩	Memorandum: Local Board cost pressures – additional information (2 Dec 2024)	107
c ⇩	Feedback template	111

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Hao Chen - Manager Local Board Financial Advisory

Authorisers

Lou-Ann Ballantyne - General Manager Governance and Engagement

Brian Chan - General Manager Financial Advisory

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Rodney Local Board

19 March 2025

Local board views on draft plan change to add trees and groups of trees to the Auckland Unitary Plan Operative in Part and to the Notable Trees overlay

File No.: CP2025/03714

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To invite local board views on a draft plan change which seeks to add trees and groups of trees to Schedule 10 of the Auckland Unitary Plan Operative in Part.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Decision-makers on a plan change to the Auckland Unitary Plan must consider local boards’ views on the plan change if local boards provide their views.

3. The purpose of the draft plan change is to add approximately 169 trees and 27 groups of trees across the region to the Auckland Unitary Plan Schedule of Notable Trees (‘Schedule 10’), and to the Notable Trees Overlay in the Auckland Unitary Plan maps. The proposed additions are derived from nominations received from the public over the course of the last decade, and which have been held in council’s database. The 169 trees and 27 groups affect approximately 160 properties.

4. Any additional analysis necessary will be undertaken following receipt of local board views. The final draft plan change, including local board views, will be reported to committee seeking authorisation to notify the plan change for submissions. If authorisation is given by the committee, it is anticipated that the plan change will be notified in May 2025.

5. The local board will have a second opportunity to express its views on the plan change after the period for submissions is complete

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) tuku / provide local board views on draft plan change to add approximately 169 trees and 27 groups of trees across the region to Schedule 10, and to the Notable Trees Overlay in the Auckland Unitary Plan maps.

Horopaki

Context

Decision-making authority

6. Each local board is responsible for communicating the interests and preferences of people in its area regarding the content of Auckland Council’s strategies, policies, plans, and bylaws. Local boards provide their views on these documents’ contents. Decision-makers must consider local boards’ views when deciding the content of these policy documents (sections 15-16 Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009). Accordingly, local boards’ views are relevant to finalising a draft plan change (to be notified for submissions). A plan change will be included in the Auckland Unitary Plan if it is later approved.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Plan change overview

7. The purpose of the draft plan change is to address all of the nominations for notable trees that council has held in its database over the last 10-12 years. All nominations have been progressively evaluated, with a view to adding them to Schedule 10, and the corresponding mapped overlay which spatially sets out the locations of all notable trees and notable groups found in the schedule.

8. Schedule 10 currently contains approximately 3000 ‘line items’ representing thousands of trees and groups of trees. It is a very large and dynamic schedule, which undergoes constant change through consenting activities such as subdivision, resource consent processes and other changes as a result of emergency works (in the case of dangerous of storm-affected trees, for example). Schedule 10 is an amalgam of all the legacy councils’ similar schedules which contained lists of specially protected trees. These were ‘rolled over’ into the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan prior to the plan being made partially operative in November 2016.

9. Schedule 10 is managed by the Auckland Unitary Plan through a policy and rule framework. The Regional Policy Statement in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Chapter B4.5. Notable Trees) contains the objectives and policies (including the criteria for scheduling), while Chapter D13. Notable Trees overlay contains the district-level objectives and policies and sets out the rules framework for how activities affecting notable trees are treated. Schedule 10 itself is found in Chapter L Schedules. The Auckland Unitary Plan maps contain the Notable Trees overlay which spatially sets out the locations of all notable trees and groups throughout the region, using specific symbology.

10. A number of plan changes have been undertaken in the last five years relating to Schedule 10 and Chapter D13 of the Auckland Unitary Plan. However, there has not been a comprehensive plan change that has attempted to evaluate and address all of the nominations received by council. These nominations have been sporadic but regular, and also include those trees which were requested to be included at the time of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan through the public submission process.

11. All nominations that seek to add trees and groups to the Schedule are triaged to ensure they are ‘eligible’ to progress through to the site evaluation stage. Those that are found to already be included in Schedule 10, or which are duplicate nominations, or those which nominate trees that are no longer present on the site, for example, are not added to the on-site application which council and consultant arborists use to assess trees.

12. The evaluation process is a detailed exercise based on the criteria as set out in the Regional Policy Statement. Each tree, and group of trees, is evaluated against each criterion and provided with a score.

The criteria are based on the following:

a) heritage or historical association.

b) scientific importance or rarity.

c) ecosystem service or environmental function.

d) cultural association and accessibility.

e) intrinsic value: the trees are intrinsically notable because of a combination of factors including size, age, vigour and vitality, stature and form or visual contribution.

13. Approximately 160 new ‘line items’ representing 169 trees and 27 groups have been found to meet the criteria and are proposed to be put forward to the plan change with a view to adding them to Schedule 10 and the corresponding Notable Trees overlay maps.

14. The plan change addresses the nominations only and does not seek to alter any of the objectives and policies, or any part of the rules framework relating to Notable Trees.

15. A summary of the numbers of trees and groups of trees according to local board area that are proposed to be added to Schedule 10 is included at Attachment A to the agenda report. The table also includes the districts within the local board areas that will be affected by the addition of trees and group of trees.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

Context

16. Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan sets out Auckland’s climate goals:

· to adapt to the impacts of climate change by planning for the changes we will face (climate adaptation)

· to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50 per cent by 2030 and achieve net zero emissions by 2050 (climate mitigation).

17. Both council’s climate goals (climate adaptation and climate mitigation) are relevant and align with the requirementfor Resource Management Act 1991 decision-makers to:

· have particular regard to the effects of climate change (section 7(i) Resource Management Act), and

· to have regard to any emissions reduction plan and any national adaptation plan prepared under the Climate Change Response Act 2002 (section 74(2) Resource Management Act) when preparing or changing a district plan.

18. It is considered that the draft plan change has positive climate considerations. The proposed formal protection through scheduling of 169 trees and 27 groups of trees across the region will contribute positively to carbon sequestration and therefore is beneficial to mitigating the effects of climate change.

Local board views – climate

19. It is not considered that the plan change will affect any local board in particular in terms of climate change. Across local board areas, the collective addition of approximately 169 trees and 27 groups of trees will be beneficial in terms of their contribution to climate change mitigation by ensuring the retention of and formal protection of a number of trees.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

20. Many of the trees and groups of trees are located on council reserves and also on road reserves which are the domain of Auckland Transport. All owners of land upon which a nominated tree or group is located were notified as part of a mail-out to advise of an upcoming site visit by a council or consultant arborist.

21. As part of the notification process, they will again be contacted if a tree or group is one of those included in the qualifying number for inclusion to the plan change. All owners and affected parties (including council departments and Auckland Transport) will have the opportunity to participate in the submission process.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

22. The purpose of the draft plan change is to add approximately 160 new ‘line items’ to Schedule 10 of the Auckland Unitary Plan, representing 169 trees and 27 groups of trees.

23. This draft plan change affects all local boards, except for Aotea/Great Barrier Local Board and Waiheke Local Board.

24. There are no funding impacts on local boards as a result of the plan change.

25. This report is the mechanism for obtaining local board views. The committee will be provided with the local board’s resolution when considering whether to authorise notification of the draft plan change.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

26. If the local board chooses to provide its views on the plan change it includes the opportunity to comment on matters that may be of interest or importance to Māori well-being of Māori communities or Te Ao Māori (Māori worldview).

27. Council is required to consult with iwi authorities when preparing a plan change. Consultation is currently underway simultaneously with all iwi authorities. Feedback will be incorporated into the plan change.

28. Later in the plan-making process, the planner will analyse Part 2 of the Resource Management Act which requires that all persons exercising Resource Management Act functions take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The plan change does not trigger an issue of significance as identified in the Schedule of Issues of Significance (2021) and Māori Plan (2017, Houkura Independent Māori Statutory Board).

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

29. The plan change does not pose any financial implications for the local board’s assets or operations.

30. Costs from undertaking the plan change are met by existing council budgets.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

31. The local board will be unable to provide its views and preferences on the draft plan change, if it does not pass a resolution. This report provides the mechanism for the local board to express its views and preferences in contributing to formulation of the draft plan change.

32. If the local board chooses not to pass a resolution at this business meeting, the opportunity to influence policy prior to public notification is forgone. (There is a later opportunity to comment on the plan change, following the close of submissions).

33. The power to provide local board views regarding the content of a plan change cannot be delegated to individual local board member(s) (Local Government Act 2002, Sch 7, cls 36D). This report enables the whole local board to decide whether to provide its views and, if so, to determine what matters those views should include.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

34. Local boards will provide feedback at the March business meetings.

35. Any additional analysis necessary will be undertaken following receipt of local board views. The final draft plan change, including local board views, will be reported to committee in May 2025 seeking authorisation to notify the plan change for submissions.

36. After submissions close, a second report will provide an opportunity for views and preferences of the local board, which will then be included in a hearing report for the decision-makers on the plan change. The local board may appoint a local board member to speak to the local board’s views at the plan change hearing.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Attachment A: Proposed additions of trees and groups by local board, and areas within each local board	119

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Ruth Andrews - Senior Policy Planner

Authorisers

Lou-Ann Ballantyne - General Manager Governance and Engagement

John Duguid - General Manager Planning and Resource Consents

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Rodney Local Board

19 March 2025

Local board input into Auckland Council’s submission on the Term of Parliament (Enabling 4-year Term) Legislation Amendment Bill

File No.: CP2025/03865

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek feedback from the local board on the Term of Parliament (Enabling 4-year Term) Legislation Amendment Bill.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Term of Parliament (Enabling 4-year Term) Legislation Amendment Bill proposes a mechanism for extending New Zealand’s parliamentary term from three to four years, subject to a binding referendum.

3. Rather than mandating an automatic change, this would allow Parliament to extend its term only if select committees reflect proportional representation – meaning the number of MPs from each party on committees matches their share of seats in Parliament.

4. Supporters argue a four-year term enables better policymaking and project delivery, while opponents highlight reduced electoral accountability. New Zealand’s three-year term is rare globally, and past referendums have opposed extending it, though recent reviews suggest shifting public sentiment.

5. A key consideration for Auckland Council is the potential impact on local election cycles. There could be years where local and central elections coincide, which could impact voter engagement. Fixed parliamentary terms would benefit the alignment of local election timing.

6. In December 2024, the council submitted feedback on the LGNZ Electoral Reform Working Group Issues Paper, supporting a four-year electoral cycle for local government. The submission acknowledged potential benefits of aligning local and central elections if local elections shift to booth voting but recommended keeping them two years apart otherwise. While most local boards supported a four-year term, views varied on election timing—some favoured aligning with central elections, while others preferred a two-year gap.

7. The Policy and Planning Committee will consider the council’s submission on 10 April 2025. The submission closing date is 17 April 2025.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) tuku / provide feedback to Auckland Council’s submission on the Term of Parliament (Enabling 4-year Term) Legislation Amendment Bill.

Horopaki

Context

Overview of the Bill

8. The Term of Parliament (Enabling 4-year Term) Legislation Amendment Bill (the Bill) proposes a mechanism to extend the current three-year Parliamentary term to four years, subject to a binding referendum.

9. The Bill doesn’t automatically change the term to four years. Instead, Parliament can choose to extend its term from three to four years if select committees are structured in a way that fairly reflects the makeup of Parliament. To make this happen, Parliament must pass a resolution within the first three months of a new term stating that the proportionality requirement has been met, and the Governor-General must then issue a proclamation.

Key Considerations

10. Arguments in favour of a four-year term include allowing for a more deliberate and considered legislative process, reducing the frequency of election cycles, and providing governments with a longer timeframe to implement policy.

11. Arguments against a four-year term highlight concerns around democratic accountability. A longer term would mean elected representatives face elections less frequently, shifting accountability from a three-year to a four-year cycle.

12. Additionally, New Zealand’s constitutional framework differs from jurisdictions with stronger checks and balances, such as an upper and lower house or a clearer separation of executive and legislative powers. In New Zealand, the executive is formed from the majority party in Parliament and drives the legislative agenda.

13. To address concerns around accountability, the Bill strengthens the role of select committees by requiring their composition to more accurately reflect the proportionality of Parliament.

History of New Zealand Parliamentary terms

14. New Zealand originally had a five-year parliamentary term, in line with Britain. In 1879, it was reduced to three years following the abolition of provincial governments, as there were concerns about the concentration of power at the central level. Reducing the term ensured more frequent electoral accountability.

15. Two non-binding referendums on extending the term—held in 1967 and 1990—both resulted in strong opposition. Both referendums saw large majorities opposed to extending the term to four years.

16. Recent reviews, including the 2013 Constitutional Advisory Panel and the 2023 Independent Electoral Review, suggest public opinion may be shifting towards a four-year term.

17. A key change since the last referendum was the introduction of the Mixed-Member Proportional (MMP) system in 1993, which increased proportional representation and strengthened the role of smaller parties in governance. While MMP has enhanced legislative scrutiny, concerns remain about reduced accountability if the term is extended.

18. The Constitutional Advisory Panel in 2013 found that public support for a four-year term was contingent on improved legislative scrutiny and accountability measures, such as more referenda, better human rights assessments, and the introduction of an upper house. The panel emphasised that any extension should be decided by referendum.

19. The Independent Electoral Review (IER), set up in 2022, also assessed the term length and found arguments for and against a four-year term to be finely balanced.

International context

20. New Zealand’s three-year parliamentary term is rare internationally. In 183 countries with elected lower houses or unicameral parliaments, only eight have a term of three years or less, 72 have a four-year term, 99 have a five-year term and four have a six-year term.

21. In general, parliaments (whether unicameral or bicameral) have a four-year or five-year term including both the United Kingdom (with Westminster-style of Parliament and Executive, headed by a sovereign) and Germany (with an MMP electoral system), from which New Zealand’s system is based.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

22. The last referendum on the parliamentary term took place in 1990 in which 69 per cent of voters rejected extending the term from three to four years. It is timely to revisit the topic again with communities.

23. A key concern for local government is the uncertainty around whether Parliament will adopt a three-year or four-year term. If local government maintains its three-year term while Parliament alternates between three and four years, there is likely to be occasional overlap, where parliamentary and local elections occur in the same year. However, this would likely happen inconsistently.

24. If local elections remain the responsibility of councils (rather than the Electoral Commission), the concurrent timing of parliamentary and local elections could lead to voter confusion.

25. Auckland Council, in its submission to the Electoral Reform Working Group, acknowledged that there could be potential benefits if local elections were conducted by the Electoral Commission, using the booth voting method, alongside parliamentary elections. This could capitalise on the higher voter turnout for parliamentary elections to boost participation in local elections. However, it remains uncertain whether this will occur.

26. As a result, the council’s draft submission on the bill would consider requesting that parliamentary terms be fixed, and that the legislation governing local elections be amended to align with parliamentary terms.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

27. The Bill does not have any direct climate impacts.

28. However, a four-year term could provide a longer, uninterrupted timeframe for planning and implementing climate-related initiatives.

29. If both local and central government terms are fixed at four years, this could lead to a reduction in postal voting for local government elections. This change may result in environmental benefits, such as reduced paper usage and a decrease in transport requirements for the delivery and collection of voting papers.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

30. The council group is not directly affected by the proposed change. However, if local and central elections were to coincide, further analysis of the potential impacts would be necessary.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

31. In February 2023, nine local boards provided feedback on the introduction of a four-year electoral term for local government in the draft submission of the Future for Local Government paper. Most supported a four-year term, though views on election sequencing varied. One board opposed aligning local and central elections, emphasising the importance of maintaining local focus.

32. In November 2024, local boards provided further feedback to inform the council’s submission on the LGNZ Electoral Reform Working Group Issues Paper (Issue Five), which also addressed the four-year term. While most local boards supported the shift, there were differing views on election timing—some favored aligning local and central elections, while others preferred a two-year gap. Local board views are compiled here.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

33. Māori views were not sought in the preparation of this report. A four-year term could allow more time to build relationships and ensure continuity in key initiatives, without disruptions from frequent election cycles.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

34. The Bill does not impose any direct costs. Potential cost efficiencies could arise if central and local elections coincide.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

35. The council's position on this matter presents minimal risk.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

36. The Policy and Planning Committee will consider approving the council’s submission at its meeting on 10 April.

37. Submissions close on Thursday, 17 April.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Maclean Grindell - Senior Advisor Operations and Policy

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor Governance

Authorisers

Oliver Roberts - Planning & Operations Manager

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Chairperson	Brent Bailey
Deputy Chairperson	Louise Johnston
Members	Michelle Carmichael
	Mark Dennis
	Tim Holdgate
	Colin Smith
	Geoff Upson
	Ivan Wagstaff
	Guy Wishart

Author	Robyn Joynes - Local Board Advisor
Authoriser	Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Author	Will Wilkinson - Democracy Advisor
Authoriser	Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager